Sure they can. They can license it out for this particular statue. Once it's licensed, there's no dilution.

And yes, I know 24 is fictional (and *bad* fiction, when it comes to tech)

Funny.... But I actually complained about that when they did it on 24 with the "magic ATC hacking box". Pilots aren't robots, if they see they're about to collide, they'll avoid it. Now there's another mechanism for the 3vil h4xx0rz to use.

But seriously. What happens when the video crashes (I guess the plane will, too), or gets hacked (and don't give me any bullshit about "airgapped")?

I actually did some minor volunteer work for the Anderson campaign in '80. He ran as an Independent, not as a Libertarian.

I had my headrest removed and then used to smack me in the back of the head while driving around a bunch of drunk friends once. Fortunately though, none of them tried to grab my tits.

Not if most people are one or the other.

So do they cancel out? Does that mean you're just verted?

You dirty vert you.

Most people don't get shocked very often. Sit in a room, think to yourself, "I wonder what that's like". Try it once, realize it sucks, and leave it alone would be the behavior I'd expect from most people.

For all intents and purposes, "all intensive purposes" is illiterate. Which begs the question, "is anyone literate enough to notice, much less care?

There. FTFY.

On the plus side, though, they did give us Terrence and Phillip.

I seem to recall that someone did a FOSS port of KQ IV for Windows.

Every time one of them opens his/her mouth.

Ah, but the difference is, they introduce new features, and remove the existing options. Under KDE, they introduced the same gimped start menu that win7 ships with. I hate it. BUT....KDE give users a choice to use the standard kde 'start' menu, if they wanted to. Why is a massive company like microsoft seemingly incabable of realising that users need and want choice and customisation in how they want to do things? seriously, how hard is it to leave the start menu alone, but give users the choice to enable/disable it? Why can't I resize the start screen tiles to exactly whaetver size I want? or colour them anyway I like, or theme them, or give them some depth, or change the shitty boring icons to something more skeuomorphic, and pleasing to the eye, so that I actually know what they mean?

For win7, I have to install a 3rd party tool like classic shell in order use the normal start menu.

For a long time, there was this thing in software design, where users could customise to their hearts content and make things look the way they wanted to; now it's all about removing choice and options, and 'It's this way or nothing' mentaility. It's really poor thinking. Office 2013...there are 3, yes 3 colour schemes...blinding white, light grey, slightly darker grey. It looks fucking awful!!! It looks like a rough and ready beta version, where they couldn't be arsed to make it look decent.

Big reason why we switched to linux and never looked back. I'm grateful to the developers for giving us the choice in how we want to make things look.

Yeah, that's how I did it after some research the first time around. But rm ./-- would have worked just fine without knowing about the -- option.

Because they're not in the US? Just supposed to be US right wing doubting climate change.