Unlike other shows that claim or have the appearance of pre-planning (Lost, Battlestar Galactica), B5 truly did have a fully-planned 5-year story arc. Obviously it had to change a few times to accommodate real-life events (Michael O'Hare leaving at end of season 1, Claudia Christian leaving at end of season 4).
As a fan, there was never any shark-jumping. That's a very specific act of doing some over-the-top sensational act to make up for lack of stories or loss of viewership.
However, my *engagement* lagged a bit in in the middle of season 4 as the focus shifted to Mars and Earth. This is probably the "jump the shark" you thought had happened, but when you go from super-epic villains to more typical villains, some let down is unavoidable.
They weren't promised a season 5 so the story arc was compressed... and then when S5 did get picked up by a different network, it was a double-edged sword because one particular storyline that was supposed to run simultaneously now had to stand almost by itself, for too many episodes, plus deal with an entirely new main character. The last half of S5 was good though.
The computer graphics, which had greatly improved season-over-season, also took a noticeable backwards step during season 4, and was especially pronounced in parts of season 5. This was my observation at the time, not through the filter of having watched more recent CGI-heavy shows like Galactica. I found out afterwards B5 had switched CGI companies, and there's some question as to whether the original left B5 or B5 left them. Either way, it didn't benefit the show on the CGI front, IMHO.
Don't let them use Chrome either then. Automatic data collection sent to google.
As administrator on the machine you can turn it off? Well, you can turn off most of the data collection in iOS too. And even if you cranked up privacy settings in Chrome, do you trust Google with your search or autocomplete data?
Submitter wanted to stop giving direct access to what he considered the worst option, Windows. But Linux, the obvious alternative, was already considered and dismissed. Leaving aside more complex solutions like virtual machines, this leaves... What, exactly? Firefox on Mac?
Submitter's use of the word "compromised" was deliberately provocative. There are enough reasons an iPad might not be ideal for guest access, the Apple-violating-privacy boogeyman is not one of them, especially for the short time periods on someone else's device that we're considering here.
You are never going to get people to pay attention to those instructions. That's human nature.
"Hi kids! I'm Fuzzy, the natural selection wolf! Obey my instructions and you just might make it out alive!"
But then the creationist/intelligent design nuts will simply dismiss and ignore every safety instruction in the video... wait, never mind, carry on with this wonderful idea!
Yes, people do believe that. Witness every time someone claims the first iPhone was a ripoff of the LG Prada, despite the fact they were announced less than a month apart (and the Prada's original UI was vastly inferior).
I love how Hitler is being redefined as part of the Communist/Socialist political spectrum.... if this gains traction, it's time to leave the US.
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
Keep deflecting from the actual issue, it'll work on some, sad to say.
Your rant against socialism is utterly irrelevant to NeutronCowboy's point. This isn't about socialism, period, full stop. It's about whether Hitler was politically left or not.
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
The point is exactly that they (the NAZI Party) started out aiming for a nationalist/socialist-type society, regardless that it devolved into a semi-Fascist dictatorship. [...] Every time I hear the "NAZIs weren't socialists!" meme I shake my head at the depth this falsity has penetrated, even among supposedly "educated" people.
Strat
The only reason I brought up the Nazis was to demonstrate *how* the right tries to distance themselves from Hitler, and I see you fell into that trap. The point is, someone falsely claimed Hitler specifically (i.e. didn't mention Nazis) was a leftie who was ultimately responsible for the Holocaust. Except that all the atrocities he and the Nazis committed in World War 2 happened long after Hitler took the party and country to the far right.
It doesn't matter what an organization or person says they are, or how they started. Do you judge Greenpeace or MADD based on their original mandate? Would you as an employer care what an applicant's grades were in high school or even university two decades ago? No, of course not, it's semi-interesting background material only--you judge them for their actions *now*, or the recent past. Since Hitler died at the end of WWII, it is entirely proper to determine his true political views based on his actions in the last five and even ten years of his life.
I love how Hitler is being redefined as part of the Communist/Socialist political spectrum.... if this gains traction, it's time to leave the US.
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
They have to engage in such mental gymnastics because they're too cowardly to accept the fact they share with Hitler the same side of the political spectrum, flawed as it is (but they love using that one-dimensional scale all the time, so too bad).
cbcnew.ca doesn't seem to do either banning or hiding comments they disagree with, but they engage in something just as bad: "pre-moderating". It's inexcusable how many troll comments thrown together in two seconds get through, while meaningful ones taking much longer, and even comments with simple corrections, never get posted. They even allow political trolling comments to get through on the most benign topic. I've stopped wasting my time there.
This is different from the past where "Letters to the editor" were pre-screened. There, print space was valuable and obvious crap wouldn't be allowed through. Now, they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
It is already firmly established in USA law that ineffectual DRM measures (such as pdf passwords) that can be trivially bypassed by methods such as using software that does not actively support the measure do not qualify as anticircumvention measures under the DMCA.
And the exemption to the laws of the USA are relevant to Canada... how?
Though in this case, we'd be slightly better off if we did have the DMCA in its current form, including the exception you noted. Our cockheaded Conservative government recently passed copyright legislation ("to bring Canada's copyright laws in line with the rest of the world") that purported to exempt certain copying from being called infringement, but that was trumped by the granddaddy of all trumps, "unless it has a digital lock" provision.
There's is a reason French was and still is used a lot for diplomatic traffic: it has lot's of checkbits countering exactly these kind of ambiguities.
You wouldn't know that working at a place with two Quebec-French coworkers and a 3rd party Quebec-based translator. They disagreed a lot on which French words to use in a given text. Then we hired someone from France...
True, none of them are versed in diplomatic French (if such a thing exists), but while it might not be as ambiguous as English, French also isn't as foolproof as it seems.
I agree on the point but not their rationalization. Considering the number of men who don't wash their hands after using the urinal, shaking hands with someone who might have had food on their fingers before they wiped clean is the least of my concerns.
So because shaking hands with someone whose fingers are covered in gravy isn't as bad as shaking hands with someone who has just wiped their arse with their fingers, it's OK to leave your hands covered with gravy after a meal?
Nice.
Do you deliberately misinterpret things people say, or do you just enjoy building straw men to knock down?
And you take think urinals are a place to take dumps? I think the sarcastic "nice" properly goes to you.
10. Licking Your Fingers/Using Fingers to Push Food Onto Your Fork.
Always use a napkin to remove food from your fingers, and a knife to push food onto your fork. If the situation were reversed, would you want to shake hands with, or take a dinner roll from, someone after their fingers have been in their mouth or on their plate?
I agree on the point but not their rationalization. Considering the number of men who don't wash their hands after using the urinal, shaking hands with someone who might have had food on their fingers before they wiped clean is the least of my concerns.
NVIDIA Surround and AMD Eyefinity are both fairly clumsy technologies; both approaches merge two or more physical screens into one logical screen. Whilst active the spanned mode results in oddities like a stretched task bar, the inability to properly borderless maximise windows to one monitor only, and things such as full-screen movies which would usually fit on one monitor with black bars above/below will instead stretch across the three and look terrible.
When Surround/Eyefinity is active and all three screens act as a single desktop, I have to ask... why *wouldn't* you expect a stretched task bar and maximized windows that span all three screens? The software is tricking the OS into believing that's the size of the desktop, so that's what it will size things to.
When you don't need Surround/EF, turn it off, and the OS should recognize three different monitors again.
(Oddly enough, on my GTX670 right now I have a mix of Surround/normal behaviour. Even when I turn Surround on for X-Plane, the task bar is on centre screen only but can't be hidden, and Firefox opens and maximizes to a single screen. I haven't been bothered enough to try resolving the inconsistencies...)
My GTX670 has a Surround feature with a bezel correction option which lets you "hide" part of the merged desktop behind the bezels, e.g. when you move your cursor between screens it'll look like it's going "behind" the bezel instead of jumping the gap between displays. Works best with monitors with small bezels to begin with, of course.
No, but just becasue they are profitable now doesn't mean we shouldn't overlook the fact that they wouldn't exist without taxes.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Okay, so Top Gear had some indirect taxpayer seed money to get off the ground. And now they're doing so well they pump a ton of money back into the organization that fed them the seed money, subsidizing other programming, even. Sounds like an extremely successful case of government investment spending, there.
We also shouldn't overlook that they use other BBC resource, which are also taxpayer funded.
I can't think of any major American product or service offered today that did not, ever, rely on taxpayer dollars in some way, even indirectly.
Amazon? Internet -> government initiative major sports teams? Played in taxpayer-subsidized venues AT&T? Phone network laid thanks in part to government-granted monopoly and taxpayer dollars. Netflix? First the postal service, and now the internet Big oil? risky ventures backed by taxpayer dollars to get off the ground a century ago, and they're getting billions in subsidies today. law firms? very dependent on a government's laws, enforcement, courthouses, judges, etc.
Not to mention all the major defense contractors that would go bankrupt if they stopped receiving billions of tax dollars every year.
And every one of these rely at some point on infrastructure that was seeded and/or maintained using taxpayer money, e.g. public roads, major airports, electricity network...
Personally I think it's disingenuous to excuse away massive faults becasue NOW they are a profit center.
I'm assuming the massive faults you're talking about are those of Top Gear, not BBC. You'll have to elaborate, because I don't see why you brought this up at all, who was excusing away what?
Expect additional taxes to be levied soon on things that potentially increase heart rate and respiration, and therefore CO2: running shoes, swimming pools, gyms, and beds.
Tradeoffs. A front-facing gun already requires quite a bit of concentration and skill. A rear one would be near impossible to aim if it's a permanent fixture, and too big/heavy if it's a computer-controlled turret. It also takes away space for fuel... and you want some distance/protection between ammo and fuel, too, which takes even more space.
Probably other reasons too, but a rear-facing gun on a fighter just doesn't seem practical for defensive purposes. In a furball, it's probably best for pilots to just try the countermeasures you mentioned, evade, and where they're going, rather than precision-guide a rear gun.
Now, if airborne laser turrets ever get small enough for a fighter while still packing enough punch to take out missiles, that's a different ball game.
Considering you have access to the user file system you just need a normal PC backup application to backup user data, and calendar, contacts and tasks are synchronized to the cloud by default whenever you connect to the Internet.
If that's the case, then probably the vast majority of Android users don't have their device data backed up anywhere. The majority of PC users *still* don't back up their internal drives to external repository (cloud or physical), let alone set up an automated system to back up files from another external device when it's connected.
Google won't even stick up for Android developers who are being sued by a patent troll for using a Google-provided authentication API. Most of those developers are small and have buckled under and paid the extortion fee. The developer of X-Plane was hit with one of these suits, but is refusing to pay, deciding to fight it instead. They estimate it will cost $1.5 million to defend. And no guarantee they'll win either.
For all the/. comments in that article assuring others that Google would step up, the developer has contact Google for help, but they have and not will offer any assistance. Not even a token defence to X-Plane or other developers using a Google-provided API, which is presumably still available to unwitting Android developers.
And the F-35 replaces the F-18, F-15, F-16, A-8, A-10 and the Harriers. The 3 versions they will have is a huge SAVINGS because it replaces so many other planes.
F-18, F-15, A-10, Harriers: 2 engines F-35, F-16: single engine.
A major issue over replacing Canada's CF-18s with F-35s was that the F-35 has a single engine. Our ancient CF-18s definitely need to be replaced, but the F-35 IMHO is not the right plane for Canada: these fighters will cover a vast northern expanse, they can't always glide to the nearest airfield if a lone engine fails.
A recent report said there were 228 incidents since 1988 where CF-18 pilots had to shut down one engine during flight, or an average of 9.5 times a year. These were "precautionary" and the report doesn't reveal if any were actual failures, or would lead to one if kept running, but it's clear a second engine was very beneficial despite additional maintenance and parts to support a 2-engine plane.
The F-35's unit cost will likely exceed $250 million when they're finally delivered. Canada still has around 100 CF-18s in service. There's no way Canada's buying enough to replace them all.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike other shows that claim or have the appearance of pre-planning (Lost, Battlestar Galactica), B5 truly did have a fully-planned 5-year story arc. Obviously it had to change a few times to accommodate real-life events (Michael O'Hare leaving at end of season 1, Claudia Christian leaving at end of season 4).
As a fan, there was never any shark-jumping. That's a very specific act of doing some over-the-top sensational act to make up for lack of stories or loss of viewership.
However, my *engagement* lagged a bit in in the middle of season 4 as the focus shifted to Mars and Earth. This is probably the "jump the shark" you thought had happened, but when you go from super-epic villains to more typical villains, some let down is unavoidable.
They weren't promised a season 5 so the story arc was compressed... and then when S5 did get picked up by a different network, it was a double-edged sword because one particular storyline that was supposed to run simultaneously now had to stand almost by itself, for too many episodes, plus deal with an entirely new main character. The last half of S5 was good though.
The computer graphics, which had greatly improved season-over-season, also took a noticeable backwards step during season 4, and was especially pronounced in parts of season 5. This was my observation at the time, not through the filter of having watched more recent CGI-heavy shows like Galactica. I found out afterwards B5 had switched CGI companies, and there's some question as to whether the original left B5 or B5 left them. Either way, it didn't benefit the show on the CGI front, IMHO.
Don't let them use Chrome either then. Automatic data collection sent to google.
As administrator on the machine you can turn it off? Well, you can turn off most of the data collection in iOS too. And even if you cranked up privacy settings in Chrome, do you trust Google with your search or autocomplete data?
Submitter wanted to stop giving direct access to what he considered the worst option, Windows. But Linux, the obvious alternative, was already considered and dismissed. Leaving aside more complex solutions like virtual machines, this leaves... What, exactly? Firefox on Mac?
Submitter's use of the word "compromised" was deliberately provocative. There are enough reasons an iPad might not be ideal for guest access, the Apple-violating-privacy boogeyman is not one of them, especially for the short time periods on someone else's device that we're considering here.
At least you are honest!
Seriously though, the right channel is through ones elected officials.
IF that consistently fails to be successful, then you may conclude that democracy is occurring.
Or perhaps one is simply in a radicalized minority.
It may be hard to tell..
Or perhaps one is simply part of the rational but tiny minority amongst an utterly apathetic and willingly ignorant majority. It's all relative.
(Except you know they'll then be the ones borking the evac procedures and prevent others from escaping)
You are never going to get people to pay attention to those instructions. That's human nature.
"Hi kids! I'm Fuzzy, the natural selection wolf! Obey my instructions and you just might make it out alive!"
But then the creationist/intelligent design nuts will simply dismiss and ignore every safety instruction in the video... wait, never mind, carry on with this wonderful idea!
Yes, people do believe that. Witness every time someone claims the first iPhone was a ripoff of the LG Prada, despite the fact they were announced less than a month apart (and the Prada's original UI was vastly inferior).
But, but....how do you know if you're winning?
Whoever bites first. Biting's excellent. It's like kissing, only there's a winner.
I love how Hitler is being redefined as part of the Communist/Socialist political spectrum.... if this gains traction, it's time to leave the US.
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
Much like people who voted for Obama.
No argument from me about that.
Keep deflecting from the actual issue, it'll work on some, sad to say.
Your rant against socialism is utterly irrelevant to NeutronCowboy's point. This isn't about socialism, period, full stop. It's about whether Hitler was politically left or not.
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
The point is exactly that they (the NAZI Party) started out aiming for a nationalist/socialist-type society, regardless that it devolved into a semi-Fascist dictatorship. [...] Every time I hear the "NAZIs weren't socialists!" meme I shake my head at the depth this falsity has penetrated, even among supposedly "educated" people.
Strat
The only reason I brought up the Nazis was to demonstrate *how* the right tries to distance themselves from Hitler, and I see you fell into that trap. The point is, someone falsely claimed Hitler specifically (i.e. didn't mention Nazis) was a leftie who was ultimately responsible for the Holocaust. Except that all the atrocities he and the Nazis committed in World War 2 happened long after Hitler took the party and country to the far right.
It doesn't matter what an organization or person says they are, or how they started. Do you judge Greenpeace or MADD based on their original mandate? Would you as an employer care what an applicant's grades were in high school or even university two decades ago? No, of course not, it's semi-interesting background material only--you judge them for their actions *now*, or the recent past. Since Hitler died at the end of WWII, it is entirely proper to determine his true political views based on his actions in the last five and even ten years of his life.
I love how Hitler is being redefined as part of the Communist/Socialist political spectrum.... if this gains traction, it's time to leave the US.
The standard defense of such extreme right wing nuts is that the Nazis were called the National Socialist Party. They put far too much weight on the flowery words they used to gain power, not their actions once they had that power. According to their thinking, North Korea must be democratic because it's in their official name.
They have to engage in such mental gymnastics because they're too cowardly to accept the fact they share with Hitler the same side of the political spectrum, flawed as it is (but they love using that one-dimensional scale all the time, so too bad).
cbcnew.ca doesn't seem to do either banning or hiding comments they disagree with, but they engage in something just as bad: "pre-moderating". It's inexcusable how many troll comments thrown together in two seconds get through, while meaningful ones taking much longer, and even comments with simple corrections, never get posted. They even allow political trolling comments to get through on the most benign topic. I've stopped wasting my time there.
This is different from the past where "Letters to the editor" were pre-screened. There, print space was valuable and obvious crap wouldn't be allowed through. Now, they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
It is already firmly established in USA law that ineffectual DRM measures (such as pdf passwords) that can be trivially bypassed by methods such as using software that does not actively support the measure do not qualify as anticircumvention measures under the DMCA.
And the exemption to the laws of the USA are relevant to Canada... how?
Though in this case, we'd be slightly better off if we did have the DMCA in its current form, including the exception you noted. Our cockheaded Conservative government recently passed copyright legislation ("to bring Canada's copyright laws in line with the rest of the world") that purported to exempt certain copying from being called infringement, but that was trumped by the granddaddy of all trumps, "unless it has a digital lock" provision.
There's is a reason French was and still is used a lot for diplomatic traffic: it has lot's of checkbits countering exactly these kind of ambiguities.
You wouldn't know that working at a place with two Quebec-French coworkers and a 3rd party Quebec-based translator. They disagreed a lot on which French words to use in a given text. Then we hired someone from France...
True, none of them are versed in diplomatic French (if such a thing exists), but while it might not be as ambiguous as English, French also isn't as foolproof as it seems.
I agree on the point but not their rationalization. Considering the number of men who don't wash their hands after using the urinal, shaking hands with someone who might have had food on their fingers before they wiped clean is the least of my concerns.
So because shaking hands with someone whose fingers are covered in gravy isn't as bad as shaking hands with someone who has just wiped their arse with their fingers, it's OK to leave your hands covered with gravy after a meal?
Nice.
Do you deliberately misinterpret things people say, or do you just enjoy building straw men to knock down?
And you take think urinals are a place to take dumps? I think the sarcastic "nice" properly goes to you.
From the last link, about dining etiquette:
10. Licking Your Fingers/Using Fingers to Push Food Onto Your Fork.
Always use a napkin to remove food from your fingers, and a knife to push food onto your fork. If the situation were reversed, would you want to shake hands with, or take a dinner roll from, someone after their fingers have been in their mouth or on their plate?
I agree on the point but not their rationalization. Considering the number of men who don't wash their hands after using the urinal, shaking hands with someone who might have had food on their fingers before they wiped clean is the least of my concerns.
NVIDIA Surround and AMD Eyefinity are both fairly clumsy technologies; both approaches merge two or more physical screens into one logical screen. Whilst active the spanned mode results in oddities like a stretched task bar, the inability to properly borderless maximise windows to one monitor only, and things such as full-screen movies which would usually fit on one monitor with black bars above/below will instead stretch across the three and look terrible.
When Surround/Eyefinity is active and all three screens act as a single desktop, I have to ask... why *wouldn't* you expect a stretched task bar and maximized windows that span all three screens? The software is tricking the OS into believing that's the size of the desktop, so that's what it will size things to.
When you don't need Surround/EF, turn it off, and the OS should recognize three different monitors again.
(Oddly enough, on my GTX670 right now I have a mix of Surround/normal behaviour. Even when I turn Surround on for X-Plane, the task bar is on centre screen only but can't be hidden, and Firefox opens and maximizes to a single screen. I haven't been bothered enough to try resolving the inconsistencies...)
My GTX670 has a Surround feature with a bezel correction option which lets you "hide" part of the merged desktop behind the bezels, e.g. when you move your cursor between screens it'll look like it's going "behind" the bezel instead of jumping the gap between displays. Works best with monitors with small bezels to begin with, of course.
No, but just becasue they are profitable now doesn't mean we shouldn't overlook the fact that they wouldn't exist without taxes.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Okay, so Top Gear had some indirect taxpayer seed money to get off the ground. And now they're doing so well they pump a ton of money back into the organization that fed them the seed money, subsidizing other programming, even. Sounds like an extremely successful case of government investment spending, there.
We also shouldn't overlook that they use other BBC resource, which are also taxpayer funded.
I can't think of any major American product or service offered today that did not, ever, rely on taxpayer dollars in some way, even indirectly.
Amazon? Internet -> government initiative
major sports teams? Played in taxpayer-subsidized venues
AT&T? Phone network laid thanks in part to government-granted monopoly and taxpayer dollars.
Netflix? First the postal service, and now the internet
Big oil? risky ventures backed by taxpayer dollars to get off the ground a century ago, and they're getting billions in subsidies today.
law firms? very dependent on a government's laws, enforcement, courthouses, judges, etc.
Not to mention all the major defense contractors that would go bankrupt if they stopped receiving billions of tax dollars every year.
And every one of these rely at some point on infrastructure that was seeded and/or maintained using taxpayer money, e.g. public roads, major airports, electricity network...
Personally I think it's disingenuous to excuse away massive faults becasue NOW they are a profit center.
I'm assuming the massive faults you're talking about are those of Top Gear, not BBC. You'll have to elaborate, because I don't see why you brought this up at all, who was excusing away what?
His CO2 production is already as low as possible. He's clearly brain-dead.
Expect additional taxes to be levied soon on things that potentially increase heart rate and respiration, and therefore CO2: running shoes, swimming pools, gyms, and beds.
Tradeoffs. A front-facing gun already requires quite a bit of concentration and skill. A rear one would be near impossible to aim if it's a permanent fixture, and too big/heavy if it's a computer-controlled turret. It also takes away space for fuel... and you want some distance/protection between ammo and fuel, too, which takes even more space.
Probably other reasons too, but a rear-facing gun on a fighter just doesn't seem practical for defensive purposes. In a furball, it's probably best for pilots to just try the countermeasures you mentioned, evade, and where they're going, rather than precision-guide a rear gun.
Now, if airborne laser turrets ever get small enough for a fighter while still packing enough punch to take out missiles, that's a different ball game.
Considering you have access to the user file system you just need a normal PC backup application to backup user data, and calendar, contacts and tasks are synchronized to the cloud by default whenever you connect to the Internet.
If that's the case, then probably the vast majority of Android users don't have their device data backed up anywhere. The majority of PC users *still* don't back up their internal drives to external repository (cloud or physical), let alone set up an automated system to back up files from another external device when it's connected.
Google won't even stick up for Android developers who are being sued by a patent troll for using a Google-provided authentication API. Most of those developers are small and have buckled under and paid the extortion fee. The developer of X-Plane was hit with one of these suits, but is refusing to pay, deciding to fight it instead. They estimate it will cost $1.5 million to defend. And no guarantee they'll win either.
Apple at least stepped up to defend iOS developers against a different troll, Lodsys. Maybe not monetarily (yet), but at least they threw their weight into the courtroom, even fighting off Lodsys' attempt to deny Apple's motion.
For all the /. comments in that article assuring others that Google would step up, the developer has contact Google for help, but they have and not will offer any assistance. Not even a token defence to X-Plane or other developers using a Google-provided API, which is presumably still available to unwitting Android developers.
And the F-35 replaces the F-18, F-15, F-16, A-8, A-10 and the Harriers. The 3 versions they will have is a huge SAVINGS because it replaces so many other planes.
F-18, F-15, A-10, Harriers: 2 engines
F-35, F-16: single engine.
A major issue over replacing Canada's CF-18s with F-35s was that the F-35 has a single engine. Our ancient CF-18s definitely need to be replaced, but the F-35 IMHO is not the right plane for Canada: these fighters will cover a vast northern expanse, they can't always glide to the nearest airfield if a lone engine fails.
A recent report said there were 228 incidents since 1988 where CF-18 pilots had to shut down one engine during flight, or an average of 9.5 times a year. These were "precautionary" and the report doesn't reveal if any were actual failures, or would lead to one if kept running, but it's clear a second engine was very beneficial despite additional maintenance and parts to support a 2-engine plane.
On the other hand, a single-engine fighter can be taken out by one bird. It's a CT-155 Hawk and not an F-16 like the title says, but that's still a $30million loss.
The F-35's unit cost will likely exceed $250 million when they're finally delivered. Canada still has around 100 CF-18s in service. There's no way Canada's buying enough to replace them all.