The Comanche program was cancelled after only $7B was spent in development, and before they started mass production. Is $7B a lot of money? Yes. But it's not $100B.
True. I'm thinking the $100B is the budget over a number of years, not a huge up-front payment. And so, when it's canceled later and we decided to upgrade the Apache again, we probably will have wasted some subset of that.
I wasn't trying to imply that we'd pop that much cash, but that we sorta have a record of starting programs for new aircraft only to cancel them after a few billion and go back to something already in the field.
One hundred *billion* dollars? Enough to buy about 5000 Apache attack helicopters (I would not like to be on the wrong end of those). Why do I think this program will end up with a tiny, tiny fraction of that?
'most devastating eruption in U.S. history. This month, they plan to set off 24 explosions — each equivalent to a magnitude-2 earthquake — around around the slumbering beast in an effort to map the its interior with unprecedented depth and clarity.'
It will be fine. The guy planting the explosives is going to be wearing a red shirt (for safety). Last name was Smith or Jones or something, didn't catch the first name.
You probably won't need to remember his first name anyway.
There are numerous ways a view screen could be disabled (object smashed it, software error, etc.) even though the plane is perfectly fit for flying otherwise.
"Buffy, season n, episoe m, good foot shot of Buffy in sandals. Season 5, episode m, Dawn notes Glory has nice feet. Season x, episode y, Tara sitting on the bed, left foot bottom visible, quite nice..."
Can someone explain this to me? I see paparazzi articles talking about "toe cleavage", (toe cleavage? Seriously?) and googling any moderately attractive famous person inevitably yields galleries geared towards said celeb in bare feet. Apparently nothing else matters except that the feet are bare.
When did feet become a thing?
Ok, I said that wrong. In a country of 300 million, *anything* is a thing for some subset of the population. I guess I meant, when did this foot fetish thing become a common thing?
I read somewhere of a type of safe called a "burn safe". If opened improperly, it destroys the contents. Apparently used for very sensitive physical documents.
Of course, you should probably have backups somewhere, probably in a different burn safe geographically distant.
...the whole idea of social networks is to get *away* from work....
I beg to differ. The whole idea of social networks is to con the sheep into providing personal details that can be sold to those willing to pay for it.
Which is even more of a reason not to participate in a work-related social network.
No. The idea of social networks is to spy on you. To collect as much information about you and use it in some way, often to make money. The whole "social" thing is only relevant as a marketing term. They might as well call them spying networks. Did you sleep the last 10 years?
Ok, given that, what would a work-based social network be? What's next, social.gov?
That will be the last time I fly commercial. The LAST thing I want to do is be couped up in an aluminum can for 1+ hours listening to half of other people's mindless drivel conversations on their phones. It's already bad enough the second the plane hits the runway on landing everyone pulls out their phones to call people. And they don't just have the "ok we just landed I'll meet you out front in 20 minutes" short talk. - No it turns into long drawn out annoying conversations hat CERTAINLY can wait until they are off the plane to have.
In-flight phones in the back of the seat have been available for years. Were in-flight calls a problem for other passengers, you'd think we would have realized it by now.
Slashdot Mirror
The Comanche program was cancelled after only $7B was spent in development, and before they started mass production. Is $7B a lot of money? Yes. But it's not $100B.
True. I'm thinking the $100B is the budget over a number of years, not a huge up-front payment. And so, when it's canceled later and we decided to upgrade the Apache again, we probably will have wasted some subset of that.
I wasn't trying to imply that we'd pop that much cash, but that we sorta have a record of starting programs for new aircraft only to cancel them after a few billion and go back to something already in the field.
One hundred *billion* dollars? Enough to buy about 5000 Apache attack helicopters (I would not like to be on the wrong end of those). Why do I think this program will end up with a tiny, tiny fraction of that?
Or maybe, end up with nothing.
Like they're going to tickle the volcano's nose, maybe, if they're lucky, it will sneeze and they'll get all kinds of data!
Would kinda suck for Vancouver, though.
This the kind of lead-in you'd expect for the beginning of a Godzilla-style movie.
I was thinking of something else.
'most devastating eruption in U.S. history. This month, they plan to set off 24 explosions — each equivalent to a magnitude-2 earthquake — around around the slumbering beast in an effort to map the its interior with unprecedented depth and clarity.'
It will be fine. The guy planting the explosives is going to be wearing a red shirt (for safety). Last name was Smith or Jones or something, didn't catch the first name.
You probably won't need to remember his first name anyway.
If I could "like" this I would.
"h-1bonics"
> NAh, they said the crew knew they were coming in to low and fast but because of rank, didn't want to correct the pilot.
I did not know that. So, on the accident report, I guess they could put under cause: Cultural.
There are numerous ways a view screen could be disabled (object smashed it, software error, etc.) even though the plane is perfectly fit for flying otherwise.
Indeed. For instance.
> hire taggers
"Buffy, season n, episoe m, good foot shot of Buffy in sandals. Season 5, episode m, Dawn notes Glory has nice feet. Season x, episode y, Tara sitting on the bed, left foot bottom visible, quite nice..."
Can someone explain this to me? I see paparazzi articles talking about "toe cleavage", (toe cleavage? Seriously?) and googling any moderately attractive famous person inevitably yields galleries geared towards said celeb in bare feet. Apparently nothing else matters except that the feet are bare.
When did feet become a thing?
Ok, I said that wrong. In a country of 300 million, *anything* is a thing for some subset of the population. I guess I meant, when did this foot fetish thing become a common thing?
She does it anyway. Might as well get paid to do it.
That was my thought also. What's next, eighth ray buoyancy tanks?
I read somewhere of a type of safe called a "burn safe". If opened improperly, it destroys the contents. Apparently used for very sensitive physical documents.
Of course, you should probably have backups somewhere, probably in a different burn safe geographically distant.
I think relying on "I forgot" is probably a good strategy if you have nothing to lose.
> 9 times out of 10, someone trying to crack your encryption is not going to be someone who is able to use that amount of leverage.
It's not about having that kind of leverage. In an interrogation, a cop is not required to tell you the truth. Never forget that.
> 6) The encrypted cellphone is thrown into the evidence bag and never looked at again because the arresting officer couldn't get it open.
Beat me to it. I'd put it more generally as "the police were stymied by encryption 2,316 times last year, but only recognized the fact nine times".
Because sometimes it's important to have others make a point rather than monologue it yourself. I thought that was obvious.
I beg to differ. The whole idea of social networks is to con the sheep into providing personal details that can be sold to those willing to pay for it.
Which is even more of a reason not to participate in a work-related social network.
> (1) the only contributors are employees with time on their hands, who tend to be the drones
In fact, I have to wonder if the purpose of a hypothetical corporate social network might be to identify the drones.
So they can watch all the pirated movies? It wouldn't be evidence for anything.
Well, except it would be evidence that the movies were pirated, and if the metadata is intact, perhaps some avenue to track by whom.
No. The idea of social networks is to spy on you. To collect as much information about you and use it in some way, often to make money. The whole "social" thing is only relevant as a marketing term. They might as well call them spying networks. Did you sleep the last 10 years?
Ok, given that, what would a work-based social network be? What's next, social.gov?
> That hellhole airline do you fly?
I'm guessing a former eastern bloc country.
That will be the last time I fly commercial. The LAST thing I want to do is be couped up in an aluminum can for 1+ hours listening to half of other people's mindless drivel conversations on their phones. It's already bad enough the second the plane hits the runway on landing everyone pulls out their phones to call people. And they don't just have the "ok we just landed I'll meet you out front in 20 minutes" short talk. - No it turns into long drawn out annoying conversations hat CERTAINLY can wait until they are off the plane to have.
In-flight phones in the back of the seat have been available for years. Were in-flight calls a problem for other passengers, you'd think we would have realized it by now.
> "A New Zealand judge has now ruled that even if the Megaupload founder supplies the passwords, the encryption keys cannot be forwarded to the FBI."
Yeah. Like copies of the drives can't be forwarded... to... the FBI...
Wait.