.. and, yes, they really can have it. Nobody cares, and nor should they. I mean, that's the entire point of trademarks. The OP writer seems a little startled by this:
"That means this trademark seems to be more about preventing other companies from making slofie-branded camera apps than it is about limiting popular usage of this totally made-up word."
.
which is exactly analogous to Coca-Cola not wanting other companies to sell different drinks labelled 'Coca-Cola' but 'not limiting popular usage' of the totally made-up word 'Coca-Cola.'

Total non-story.

I think the OP is likely confusing C.S. Lewis with Lewis Carroll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(although these allegations are contested too)

I'm way more concerned that the A380 also failed its ultimate load test, and that was in an era of FEA software models:
https://www.flightglobal.com/n...
(This article is a darkly comic read: engineers explaining away the fact that the wing did not meet its design spec: 'Garcia says that the failure of the wing below the 1.5 target will require “essentially no modifications” to production aircraft' -> translation: 'This design needs modifications')

Nah, he'll be fine. If you download the 'Best Quality' version of Iron Man 2 it's only 12minutes long.

I don't mean to be rude to you, but that is how a lot of people outside of product design and manufacturing think.

As an (ex)engineer, I'm often more impressed by *how* Apple (and their suppliers) make things than *what* they make. For example, the (steel) front bezel on the original iPhone was something that looked basically unmanufacturable to me: for a start, you can't hold the same tolerances on a steel casting as a plastic part, so it was astonishing that the back plastic clamshell and the steel bezel met almost seamlessly.

Turn out that Apple were making the back clamshell in a number of different sizes (three, I hear) and the bezel in a single size. They finished the bezel and then used an optical system on the production line to pick out which parts would fit with which plastic clamshells.

It's an extremely unusual process that involved a lot more up-front investment in technology and process, but gave the result their designers wanted and the customers thought was 'pretty neat'. So Huawei want to know about those optical systems, as well as what's inside an Apple watch.

Tear-downs won't tell you anything about a lot of the most interesting solutions that a designer had to devise: Toyota used to famously say that they weren't designing cars, they were designing a process to make cars.

"isn't immune to US government influence" is a gross understatement (I assume you were being ironic!). We know that US companies up and down the stack have been clandestinely legally compelled to compromise user security in favor of national security goals.

Software: NSA-designed Ecliptic Curve encryption algorithm adopted by companies (RSA, Microsoft, Cisco) despite widespread suspicion that they were designed with backdoors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ...and then all the stuff Snowden exposed. Heck, even all of these 'transparency reports' are admissions that the government is forcing US companies to do things that they would prefer not too.

Meanwhile, the US have quite a history of computer hardware sabotage:
Deliberately faulty processors designed to destroy oil pipeline, resulting in huge explosion:
https://www.wired.com/2004/03/...
"Every microchip they stole would run fine for 10 million cycles, and then it would go into some other mode. It wouldn't break down, it would start delivering false signals and go to a different logic... It was a huge explosion. The Air Force thought it was a 3-kiloton blast."

so, yes, we should assume that Huawei is just as vulnerable to state manipulation and exploitation as any similar US company.

Strange hills to die on, since Dr. Who has had male companions since 1969 and The Doctor is an alien species who has regenerated his identities seemingly at random: the fact that Time Lords can change gender during regeneration was established at least 7 years ago with The Corsair (as written by Neil Gaiman, not Moffett).
But if this gender stuff really bothers you, you'll see it everywhere.

... and surely there's no better way to celebrate than browsing QDB: the best of IRC. One of the funniest things I've ever read on the internet. Captures the unique blend of genius and idiocy on IRC
http://www.bash.org/?top

In what respect? As I recall, every aspect was true 3D, with the exception being some of the weapon discharges and object drops (rendered as 2D sprites in 3D space.

Says you. For me, Descent is (still) the only FPS I can play without getting seriously motion-sick. The responsiveness/lack of latency can only be a tribute to the coders involved, as even on tech of the time (I played on a 133Mhz Pentium IIRC) it was quicksilver.
The control system is also a thing of beauty: once you have the nine-keys -> full-six-degrees-of-freedom mastered, you can do the most elegant swerves and loops. One of my favorite gaming experiences of all time.

Yeah, I can go one further than that: the Convair X-6 (1955-57) was a fully-functioning nuclear-powered bomber *airplane* that was flight-tested but never operationalized:

"The NTA completed 47 test flights and 215 hours of flight time (during 89 of which the reactor was operated) between September 17, 1955, and March 1957[2] over New Mexico and Texas. This was the only known airborne reactor experiment by the U.S. with an operational nuclear reactor on board."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What could possibly go wrong?

+1 I think there has been a concerted effort to persuade 'civilians' that being a cop is the equivalent of being in the military in terms of danger. Any level of response is justifiable when your life is 'continuously under threat.' What you see on TV is not representative of the average police officers daily life.

I just parsed the 2016 statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):(https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm) and figured out that the fatal injury rate for 'Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers' is 14.6 (the rate is a bit complicated, but weighted by total hours worked by total employees in that profession, to make jobs comparable)

Police work: @14.6 - slightly less, but roughly equivalently dangerous to Cement Manufacturing, Construction Laboring, working in Fish-Farming, Landscaping.

Professions that are 50%+ more likely to kill you than police work: Farming/Ranching (23.1), truck driving (24.7), steel-working (25.1), refuse collection (34.1)

More than THREE TIMES as dangerous as being a police officer: Roofing (48.6) and Aircraft pilots (55.5) (presumably a lot of private pilots crash?).

The most dangerous jobs in America today? Being a commercial fisherman (nearly six times as dangerous as being a cop) and Forestry Logging (more than NINE times more dangerous).

In case you're thinking it's a sample-size thing: in 2016, (according to the BLS), 108 police officers were fatally injured doing their job. 101 roofers, 91 loggers, 570(!) truck drivers.

So let's take truck driving, a considerably more dangerous profession than being a police officer, as an example. By the way, you 'need' truck drivers - it's how the food gets to your supermarkets and the medicines to the hospital. Truck driving, unhappily, causes some 'civilian' deaths, for a bunch of reasons: job stress, some bad training, some drivers don't take the mandatory breaks, maybe some use stimulants, whatever. How about we all look the other way when that happens, because, hey, it's a dangerous job, man? A lot of those truck drivers die on the job, y'know: you'd have to be one to understand.

I believe we should hold police to a higher standard than truck drivers, not a lower one. Being in danger is no excuse at all for being sloppy.

Beat me to it!
https://pin.it/yygxc5ugqjcbcm
It's probably one of the weaker episodes, indulging the shows tendency to put some techie gimmick in the middle of the murder plot. But I loved seeing Robbie!

Ditto those stupid 'KBA' (knowledge-based authentication) questions, which are even worse:
1. Who on God's earth thinks asking "What was the make of your first car?" is remotely secure? Ford, Honda and Toyota together make up over 30% of all the cars on the roads!
2. once a database on these is cracked/leaked/left-in-a-public-restroom I can never change "the first concert I went to" making that answer insecure for the rest of my life, but I'll probably never know that.
3. I find myself looking down the options going: well, none of these apply. I don't have a favorite baseball team. I didn't have a nickname when I was a kid. I don't want to give you gobs of biographical information. I guess I'll have to make something up, and then forget it.

None of the security of biometrics, with all the irrevocability. I can't figure out why these were ever thought to be a good idea.

Well, taking the obvious bait, I'd say this is a stash of co-develop British GCHQ tools and those shared with the Brits. Why? At least two of them are named after Dr. Who characters. CIA/NSA seem to prefer randomly chosen 'ADJECTIVE NOUN' (eg. 'Stinky Bishop') over sci-fi themed nerd-friendly "Sontaran" and "Weeping Angels."

Next up, characters from Lord of the Rings...