Thus 'avoid close contact with prairie dogs'. The 'medieval rat/flea'-connection was a problem because rats and humans lived in close vicinity to each others. In colorado, that goes prairie dog->flea->other prarie dog, you'll find them on the animal, in the burrow, and on the carcass, but a flea doesn't hop 5 miles towards from through the desert.
I'd wager a plane in a museum is stripped down internally and nothing more than a shell, while a plane on an actively protected military installation is more likely to be complete (or more complete), thus easier restorable.
The opposite usually. Museums are sticklers for originality. They'll bribe some congressman's mistress to get a meeting so they can get assurances the ATF will behave "favorably" so they can import part of a half parted out anti-aircraft system from Chad ur Uruguay or some shit because that's the only place the obscure gun variant they need for the coaxial machine gun in their tank is still available. Or they'll buy the fuselage of some obscure plane that was only sold to the Indian Coast Guard because it shares all the cockpit instrumentation with some 100 series fighter they're trying to undo the 'nam era mods to and restore to it's 1950s SAC trim.
The SR-71 on display at the Udvar-Hazy branch of the Air and Space Museum located near Dulles Airport in Virginia does not have its engines in the nacelles. The rest of the exterior looks complete, but other internals could very well also be missing and the exterior would still look identical.
> surely your MEP will be receptive to your grievances, yeah
I've yet to find a country - anywhere in the world - where a member of parliament is receptive to anything that's not the party line to begin with without copious amounts of money involved.
Do you count the MEP who subpoenaed the ATM company that charged a $175 ATM fee? What's your corruption angle there? Wa she getting paid off by a competing ATM company?
There have been various cases where individuals have been determined to be separate controllers. For example there have been many cases where doctors/nurses/police looked into the employer's databases without having professional need and were determined to be separate controllers and were fined under GDPR.
After decades of watching people use these three words, I've come to the conclusion that 'national security threat' is a right-wing dog-whistle for 'we have no actual proof, but we dislike it, so let's ban it'.
They are basically 'won't someone please think of the children?', but with higher stakes.
it's a general politician dogwhistle, don't underestimate "the left" (especially in countries like the US, where the democrats are really not that left compared to other left parties in e.g. europe; leaving you with a pointless right-wing vs right-wing fight where nobody wins)
Its worse than that. Its "think of the children" but with slightly more truth to the statement than " think of the children". Because it is definitely a national security threatwhile primarily actually being said to |imit freedoms and increase market power abuse possibilities for big tech and/or media.
Pictures on a menu implies that the menu rarely changes - menu creation is expensive and slow - and has standard offerings. This then means that food is likely to be less fresh, less seasonal, and more likely to be precooked in large batches and frozen/reheated. In short, it is a red flag for systemic cooking rather than artisinal cooking.
You find that most higher-class restaurants have a one-page menu, with a soup of the day, 4-7 dishes, and maybe a dessert, with the menu being written once a day and clear about what you get.
Most people I encounter who complain about AI use it as a shorthand for 'anything I don't like or disagree with'. When asked why they think something was created using genAI, they cannot point out reasons.
With the major distinction being that a lot of Europeans have absolutely no intention of ever visiting the United States, a country with a history of sometimes more, sometimes less hostility and aggressive intelligence agencies.
If you want to visit a hellhole, go through the hassle. But don't hand out all of our data just because you want to do joyrides.
Can't see where "the major distinction" lies. It's also true that a lot of US citizens have absolutely no intention of ever visiting Europe -- as to hostilities, well the last two World Wars didn't exactly start in the US.
Good, so we can agree that the minor hassle for the minority to get a slightly slower immigration line at the airport does not outweigh privacy rights for the majority.
BTW: Where, and when, those wars started is a splendid way for historians to spend an afternoon discussing.
The point is that after 1945, the US never stopped fighting wars all over the world, using euphemisms sometimes, sometimes slogans, but it always was war.
I'd expect these kinds of things to wane now that we do anything in a cloud and data's gone the moment the credit card says nyet.
reply