“Loses contact with” is not a good phrase, when used in conjunction with an aircraft. This is really not good.
Stderr
All the unbuffered error messages
“Loses contact with” is not a good phrase, when used in conjunction with an aircraft. This is really not good.
I’ve set a reminder in my calendar and I’ll do the googling and analysis so you don’t have to. Assuming we all survive, that is.
I wasn’t sure how to approach [stderr]. Serious, or silly? Here’s the silly version:
According to Pagetutor, this is what $1Bn looks like, if you palletize it: [page]
The Register reports, in shock, that British F-35s are going to have their engines serviced in Turkey.
Donald Trump announced a $600 million cut to the cost of the F-35 joint strike fighter. That sounds pretty good, unless you look at the $600 million stacked up against the total program cost, which is going to be nearly $1 trillion by the time the first-order fleecing is complete. [cnbc]
When you’ve got over half a trillion dollars at stake, people will do or say pretty much anything. So it gets hard to figure out what’s going on when you read headlines in the form of “X is an ongoing disaster” alongside of “great cost-savings achieved via X” for any given X. It’s hard to be both a tremendous success and an ongoing disaster. I am, naturally, referring to the latest news about the F-35 program.
In computer security transitive trust is when system A trusts B, and system B trusts C – in that case system A trusts C but doesn’t usually realize it.
Who needs infrastructure, arts and culture, or medical care – when you can have an F-35!? It’s stealthy!
Kinda.
It’s a great fighter!!
Not really.
It does VTOL off the deck of support ships!
Sorry.
It’s a little hard to sort out the grifts when they’re so many-layered. So, please bear with me.
Apparently Trump’s pressuring Lockheed Martin squeezed around $700 million off of one of the F-35 contracts.