More importantly, "4 wheel STOP" can mean jack shit on glaze ice, no matter what your drivetrain is. It's not how many wheels have brakes, it's how the driver knows to use them.
A social-engineering blackhat extorted a distinctive and notable, and thus allegedly valuable, Twitter handle from its legitimate registered user.
Why?
It's like stolen art: the thief can't display it without implicating himself. The thief can't sell it, because the fool that buys it can't display it without implicating himself, and the thief by association (and vulnerability to investigative back-tracking).
So.... why?
A lot of work to go to for the sole purpose of effectively destroying a Twitter handle.
Got it for free; basically, local small-town newspaper had been using it to lay out classified ads, but had moved on (newer machines after 15 years) and the screen was completely burned in with the layout software entry form.
Ebay to the rescue. Now the SE has a new CRT, 4 megs of ram, and a SCSI-to-ethernet adapter so that I can use Ethertalk and TCP/IP on the in-house network.
Cool little machine. At least, after I bought the extra-long Torx screwdrivers I needed to get into the case. Damn Steve Jobs.
The real problem is, of course, that for major weapon systems, the US always buys American. Even if it's not really American. As you point out with the Harrier.
The US flies the Boeing Harrier. Not the Hawker-Siddeley one. Even if it were exactly the same airframe. Because, you know, "buy American". (Apparently, shoveling money at a US-flag middleman corporation to import and rebadge counts.)
And yes, I know, the Boeing (formerly McDonnel-Douglas) version is significantly different in many respects from, say, the original Harrier, and represents an evolutionary divergence from the other operational version of the Harrier, the BAe Sea Harrier.
So, yeah, assuming that SAAB can summon up the political patronage (i.e., lobbying) necessary to get in the door, and an American aviation corporation sugar daddy to rebadge, it wouldn't be completely impossible (for technical reasons) for the U.S. Navy to operate, say, a hypothetical Northrop F/A-39 Sea Griffon fighter. It just would be completely impossible for political reasons: The F-35 fighter program, as it exists, completely sucks the air out of the entire US Naval Fighter-Attack procurement space.
Never, ever happen. AF is a bigger contract and has WAY more political clout. They always trump the squids.
Yeah. It's a real shame the Air Force never flew the F-4.
Let's just say that if the Navy and the Air Force become aware of a need for a new weapons system at about the same time, they'll both get independent systems. The F-4 became popular in the Air Force only because Air Staff somehow didn't realize they needed an actual air-superiority aircraft. Apparently, Century-series bomb-sleds and go-fast interceptors are all they ever thought they needed. (SAC thinking, really. And I say that as an Air Force veteran who literally lived my entire life, childhood and adult, in the SAC culture.)
So when they needed an actual dogfighter, they had to take what was available (F-4E) and start the procurement process for what became the F-15 and F-16.
But this sense of the word "anarchy", as in lawless chaos, has very little to do with the political / social philosophy called Anarchism, which was my point.
Except that every attempt to attain the latter results in the former, in the same way that every attempt to attain Marxist Socialism has resulted in Communist totalitarianism.
I suppose this is where you bring out "No true Anarchist"....
I was expecting to get the EFF site, not some random "tech journalist" who couldn't pass 5th grade English!
The "editors" here don't want to link to TFAs that make their own skills look too bad by comparison.
The joke's on them, though; there is no sample of text on the Internet written by a human being that doesn't make the editors look like spastic monkeys slapping keyboards around.
Your manager isn't there to get information from you. Your manager is there to give information to his superiors.
Information flows up, direction flows down. And it's all supposed to be push. You push your information up. Your boss pushes his information up. His (her, whatever) boss pushes information up. At some point, a decision is made, pushed down, digested, becomes more detailed decisions, are pushed down, etc... to the level where the decision becomes action.
No, sorry, the boss is not supposed to be polling you.
Wow, and what kind of hell would that be? I don't want my boss popping into my cubicle pestering me. That's a particularly dilbertesque vision of hell.
It's benchmarketing. You're not supposed to pay attention to the unbalanced comparison behind the curtain. You're supposed to suspend all critical thought and begin Pavlovian salivation. Otherwise, you're not fanboi enough and need some re-education. Or something.
Meh. The way you can tell a marketer isn't lying is when he's not breathing.
...a well-known effect whereby function in a computing system family is migrated out to special-purpose peripheral hardware for speed, then the peripheral evolves toward more computing power as it does its job, then somebody notices that it is inefficient to support two asymmetrical processors in the architecture and folds the function back into the main CPU, at which point the cycle begins again.
In any case, that group doesn't need to use university trademarks to make them.
Of course they did. It's called "nominative fair use". They have to identify who they're criticizing; otherwise, it's just empty-headed bellyaching (the kind we could probably expect from you).
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, "4 wheel STOP" can mean jack shit on glaze ice, no matter what your drivetrain is. It's not how many wheels have brakes, it's how the driver knows to use them.
Dammit.
I am going to be spending the entire rest of my life trying to get that visual out of my head.
Damn you. Damn you to hell.
A social-engineering blackhat extorted a distinctive and notable, and thus allegedly valuable, Twitter handle from its legitimate registered user.
Why?
It's like stolen art: the thief can't display it without implicating himself. The thief can't sell it, because the fool that buys it can't display it without implicating himself, and the thief by association (and vulnerability to investigative back-tracking).
So.... why?
A lot of work to go to for the sole purpose of effectively destroying a Twitter handle.
-- Peacekeeper Commissioner Pravin Lal
I just wish Voigt and Kampff would hurry up and invent their machine.
Then again, given current trends, the authorities would probably start "retiring" normal citizens as well as real replicants.
The destruction of ships is one of the major drivers of demand in the Eve economy.
Wow. Someplace where the Glazier's Fallacy isn't a fallacy. It figures it would be in the economy of an MMO.
Clearly? Care to back that up?
Why? It's clearly better.
Clearly. Better.
Evidence would be redundant.
</sarcasm>
My SE rocks.
Got it for free; basically, local small-town newspaper had been using it to lay out classified ads, but had moved on (newer machines after 15 years) and the screen was completely burned in with the layout software entry form.
Ebay to the rescue. Now the SE has a new CRT, 4 megs of ram, and a SCSI-to-ethernet adapter so that I can use Ethertalk and TCP/IP on the in-house network.
Cool little machine. At least, after I bought the extra-long Torx screwdrivers I needed to get into the case. Damn Steve Jobs.
The real problem is, of course, that for major weapon systems, the US always buys American. Even if it's not really American. As you point out with the Harrier.
The US flies the Boeing Harrier. Not the Hawker-Siddeley one. Even if it were exactly the same airframe. Because, you know, "buy American". (Apparently, shoveling money at a US-flag middleman corporation to import and rebadge counts.)
And yes, I know, the Boeing (formerly McDonnel-Douglas) version is significantly different in many respects from, say, the original Harrier, and represents an evolutionary divergence from the other operational version of the Harrier, the BAe Sea Harrier.
So, yeah, assuming that SAAB can summon up the political patronage (i.e., lobbying) necessary to get in the door, and an American aviation corporation sugar daddy to rebadge, it wouldn't be completely impossible (for technical reasons) for the U.S. Navy to operate, say, a hypothetical Northrop F/A-39 Sea Griffon fighter. It just would be completely impossible for political reasons: The F-35 fighter program, as it exists, completely sucks the air out of the entire US Naval Fighter-Attack procurement space.
Never, ever happen. AF is a bigger contract and has WAY more political clout. They always trump the squids.
Yeah. It's a real shame the Air Force never flew the F-4.
Let's just say that if the Navy and the Air Force become aware of a need for a new weapons system at about the same time, they'll both get independent systems. The F-4 became popular in the Air Force only because Air Staff somehow didn't realize they needed an actual air-superiority aircraft. Apparently, Century-series bomb-sleds and go-fast interceptors are all they ever thought they needed. (SAC thinking, really. And I say that as an Air Force veteran who literally lived my entire life, childhood and adult, in the SAC culture.)
So when they needed an actual dogfighter, they had to take what was available (F-4E) and start the procurement process for what became the F-15 and F-16.
Well, Grumman had a damn good head start knifing the F-111B in the back and scavenging its still-warm corpse for a lot of its technology.
Of course, Grumman was only doing what the Navy wanted them to, so it worked out well for everyone except for McNamara.
CLA, CLA, CLA, CLAH.
CLA, CLA.
CLA CLA CLA.
After a while, if you say "CLA" enough, it begins to sound like it's not even really a word.
Oh, wait, it really isn't a word. Never mind.
"Between you and me, I don't think she studied at an accredited institution"
-- "Doctor" Ada Straus' bodyguard, Fallout New Vegas
"The [Bitcoin] Pope! How many divisions does he have?"
--Joseph Stalin
The USD is money because a large powerful government says it is, and backs it up with state force. And that's all anyone needs to know.
Maybe the point wasn't to get into the USB stick? Maybe the point was to find a reason to incarcerate him longer?
Cynical, yes. Feasible, quite yes.
OTOH, Hanlon's Razor does favor your reasoning.
But this sense of the word "anarchy", as in lawless chaos, has very little to do with the political / social philosophy called Anarchism, which was my point.
Except that every attempt to attain the latter results in the former, in the same way that every attempt to attain Marxist Socialism has resulted in Communist totalitarianism.
I suppose this is where you bring out "No true Anarchist"....
I was expecting to get the EFF site, not some random "tech journalist" who couldn't pass 5th grade English!
The "editors" here don't want to link to TFAs that make their own skills look too bad by comparison.
The joke's on them, though; there is no sample of text on the Internet written by a human being that doesn't make the editors look like spastic monkeys slapping keyboards around.
In other words, this effect.
Pigopolists feel that the consumer's only rights are to give them money, consume the shite (once only, you unindicted pirate), and go the fuck away.
Perfectly rational in an utterly amoral "maximize profits by any method we can get away with" sense.
In fact, it was predicted. It was a particularly sharp observer of English politics who coined the phrase "memory hole".
That isn't how it works.
Your manager isn't there to get information from you. Your manager is there to give information to his superiors.
Information flows up, direction flows down. And it's all supposed to be push. You push your information up. Your boss pushes his information up. His (her, whatever) boss pushes information up. At some point, a decision is made, pushed down, digested, becomes more detailed decisions, are pushed down, etc... to the level where the decision becomes action.
No, sorry, the boss is not supposed to be polling you.
Wow, and what kind of hell would that be? I don't want my boss popping into my cubicle pestering me. That's a particularly dilbertesque vision of hell.
And there's a reason why the executive suite doesn't listen:
"You're not the boss of me!"
(Supported by "If anything does happen, it's your fault anyway.")
Of course it was.
It's benchmarketing. You're not supposed to pay attention to the unbalanced comparison behind the curtain. You're supposed to suspend all critical thought and begin Pavlovian salivation. Otherwise, you're not fanboi enough and need some re-education. Or something.
Meh. The way you can tell a marketer isn't lying is when he's not breathing.
Yup.
It's the wheel of reincarnation:
"I don't have to outrun the bear; I only have to outrun you."
In any case, that group doesn't need to use university trademarks to make them.
Of course they did. It's called "nominative fair use". They have to identify who they're criticizing; otherwise, it's just empty-headed bellyaching (the kind we could probably expect from you).
Fair Use is applicable to trademarks, too.