And of course, no "alternative to Mendeley" list would be complete without Endnote. (Although it's somewhat interesting that Mendeley started as "the alternative to Endnote" - I guess it's come full circle.
So, with your expert knowledge of the situation, how do you propose to make the thing hover when the TWR is 1.8 at minimum thrust?
Just curious.
The vertical speed was also planned. How do you propose to control the rocket's attitude with the fins when it's moving very slowly, since they rely on airspeed to function?
Let me guess, you just assumed that "hover slowly and touch down like a helicopter" was the desired descent profile without looking anything up?
That large explosion at the end of the longer video implies there was plenty of fuel left over.
You would assume that, yes. But a) that's mainly the fuel vapour in the near-empty main tanks, and b) the fuel the GP is talking about is the pressurisation of the hydraulic lines for the control systems that run the thrusters and fins, not the fuel that runs the rocket engine.
Is there something wrong with the driver Nvidia supplies?
This is about the open source driver, not the proprietary one that Nvidia ships for Linux that works just as well as the windows one that they ship for Windows.
They licence some of the IP involved in the hardware that does not belong to them. It's not as simple as just letting it out with no restrictions.
What else did you want them to do to prove they were taking the exploit seriously?
Well I'm not writing a book for you, and someone else already covered an example.
Why don't you tell me the answer to your questions.
This isn't a test. What is this? High school?
The fact that you're being acutely defensive suggests to me that you just wanted to engage in some good old fashioned Microsoft bashing with nothing constructive to add in the safety of slashdot.
As far as how I would answer my own question, based on my original assertion that they have already taken it seriously; nothing.
However, since you suggested that they have not taken the exploit seriously enough, I wondered how exactly our positions differed (since I can't read your mind) and what exactly they would have to do so that you and I agreed that they were taking it seriously enough.
Remember, I already think they are taking it seriously enough based on the release of patches back to win 7 and a workaround given for non-patched machines, so my answer is "nothing", but that clearly can't be your answer because otherwise we'd agree.
I think you missed my sarcasm.
I was continuing the riff, you know, because Bill Paxton was not in ID4 and Will Smith was, thus proving the point that Will Smith clearly played all the...
Never mind.
I'll put a giant "this is a joke" disclaimer next time.
Here's your obligatory: "Whoosh".
I'll explain the joke: people seem to get confused between Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. (And apparently so did you; Paxton was NOT in Independence Day.)
The OP wrote Bill Paxton, and given the length of the post, I assume the mistake was intentional. The standard response is, of course, that "Bill Pullman was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton". The poster you quoted then took the standard response and twisted it around by correctly naming an actor other than Pullman who was in Independence Day.
It's of course no longer funny since I had to explain it, but it seemed necessary.
I think you missed my continuation of the theme, or was it too subtle?
Bill Paxton was amazing in Independence Day!
Will Smith was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton...
Today I learned that if one actor stars in a film then no one else starred in it.
I'm against "withholding details" if anything there should be an established web page that release the exploit as soon as it is found FORCING M$ and Apple to take it more seriously.
char request1[] = "GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: stuff\r\nRange: bytes=0-18446744073709551615\r\n\r\n";
How are they not taking it seriously? The summary mentions that patches are already available, plus a method to prevent the exploit occurring on a non-patched machine.
What else did you want them to do to prove they were taking the exploit seriously?
I believe someone here proposed the same adjustment when the original iPhone launched.
Also when the iPad launched.
Strangely no adjustment when the Galaxy Gear launched, although I think they sold at least than 1 per minute, but you think they'd want to adjust it the other way too, eh?
You mean Android smart watches right?
There's a reason for that - the early ones were alpha-quality (especially Samsung's) since they rushed them to market long before they were ready in the wake of the continual "Apple is making a watch, any time now" rumours.
They're much better now - for example, the LG one doesn't cut off part of the screen and the Gear actually functions now.
It still has to be proven to me that the bus does something valuable. I stopped riding the bus over a decade ago.
I wear a watch all the time. I don;t want an Appel smart watch, but I do wear an analogue watch made of metal.
I also wash my hands frequently (I work in a lab).
Oh sorry, I forgot that everyone on earth has the same needs as you. My mistake.
Since everybody is required to do business to survive, you're effectively saying that nobody has rights. Where in the Constitution does it say that we lose them when engaging in business? I can accept that for corporations, who are making a bargain in exchange for limited liability, but not for partnerships and proprietorships.
Well Citizens United says that corporations are people, so really there's no distinction.
Either you agree with the civil rights act or you don't, but the fact remains that it is in place to ensure that the "every man is equal" part of the constitution is upheld, hence the inability of a business to turn away black people. What this bill seeks to do is ensure that if homosexuality becomes a protected class that business owners who are bigoted won't be sued.
Also, your first sentence is a huge, huge non-sequitur. There is no "requirement to do business" to survive - you can work for someone else if you want to, and even have your religious beliefs upheld (for example, if you work in a store you can ask to not handle pork as a Jew or a Muslim). The fact that you think that if a bill specifically designed to protect religious people's ability to discriminate is removed means that "none of us have freedom" is just laughable.
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.
