Freedom of Speech doesn't necessarily imply freedom of speech AND TIME AND PLACE.

A funeral is one of those things we all will have, and at which none of us will be free to speak back against those who might speak against us. The air should be tuned, on those occasions, to the interests of the deceased and the sensitivities of those who love them. If you are not on the speaker list, you're in the audience, mate. You have the rest of the world and the rest of time to express your caustic views. That's a lot of space and time. It's an uncommon mind that can fill both. Really.

If you cannot come up with something nice to say, and find yourself utterly unable to shut your maw, I can spot you one positive thought: be thankful this isn't YOUR funeral, and think what you might wish that moment to be like.

"'Context aware' is the key to revolutionizing the TV-watching experience: you can say the name of a TV show, the name of a channel, the description of a show, or the description of a kind of video you'd like to find on YouTube, and the TV will tell you it's not available in your country or requires upgrading to a package of subscription."

Fixed it.

It flue in

I have found in my own limited use of cryptography code that I was entirely unsure if I were using it correctly or as intended, owing to a completely new lingo used for everything, which was nowhere bound to a comprehensive explanation of what it meant, why it was needed, and what practices should be avoided.

I came off thinking the big advance would be to avoid sending out under-documented code in the first place. The average user is not a cryptologist, but a vanilla coder-of-things, and to avoid heartache at the user level, these coders must find the libraries straightforward.

Weren't very first CIWS systems focused primarily on skimmers? Pop-up attack modes appeared in later missiles primarily as a means to confound the core strength of these. The RN wanted them for ships heading to the Falklands where sea skimming missiles were the threat for which they had the thinnest countermeasures.

The latest CIWS shows a 25 degree depression angle limit on Wikipedia (earlier ones, 20). I'm not sure how many ships installations permit that, but I'd think the sponson mounting would permit it.

The carrier is, by far, the most useful ship in the fleet in the wars we fight. Its theoretical weaknesses only become actual in the wars we don't fight.

Their greatest downsides are their expense and operating costs.

The restriction against use of primary sources is silly, and one of the main reasons I have my own wiki (for naval history).

I had to beg and plead to correct the page on USS Constitution which asserted that the ship's wheel was still one removed from HMS Java in 1812 because some idiot wrote that in a book. You can look at the wheel and tell that it is plainly under 30 years old. You can email the very person at Navy History and Heritage Command who is in charge of maintaining the vessel who can tell you when that wheel was installed, and when the one it replaced was installed, and... they want someone to write a book. And what exactly would that do except create "a lack of consensus"?

Wikipedia is a great thing, but when it becomes a means of preserving and disseminating falsehood, a great opportunity is grossly diminished.

We should have environments that compile the comments and ignore the code, because that is where the bugs are.

Who ever read a comment that read anything like the following?

// iterate through the list of records, but be off-by-one at the end

That would be some nice seating, indeed

Actually.. wars stop the Olympics, not vice-versa.

Catherine Bly Cox and Charles Murray's stupendous (a mild word here) book, Apollo tells this back story between pages 130 and 175 or so.

My recollection of the germ:

The early engines were unstable and would flame out or shake themselves to pieces. These faults were apparently corrected by trial and error iteration on the injector plates, but the question was how to determine that they had been fully solved with a reasonable test regimen.

The bomb test was a metric to force an instability on an engine that had proven to run stably, and the requirement was that the engine had to resume a stable burn within 4/10th second. The goal was that this forced instability would help assuage doubts about what their limited tests might not be showing them. The accepted engine design actually stabilizing within 1/10th of a second.

This film has been rated NP Complete

I don't see how a powerloss caused this... the coolant hardware or plumbing must have failed or ruptured or vital systems that could generate power in the manner a nuclear plant does prevented it from functioning.

Why, if there is too much heat despite a shutdown/cooldown being underway, do they not simply generate power from the turbines for on-site use in mediating the 1-2 day cooldown? Something has to be broken, not just a generator, as half the place's design is expressly intended to convert heat into power. This is before you even consider the other 5 reactor cores. Why is failure of a generator even a tiny issue?

By any chance, does your console smell strongly of freshly-brewed coffee?