What about a circular sausage?
What about a circular sausage?
...only sausage has two!
How many ends does a circle have?
The current comments are mostly trolls and brain-dead idiocy. As typical for the new
It wasn't until around 1999-2000 (I think) that distros started replacing LILO with GRUB as the default bootloader. GRUB offered many new powerful features that certainly helped its adoption. That is not to say, though, that LILO didn't have benefits as well (and in some circumstances it still does). It's sad to see that such a pinnacle piece of software contributing to Linux's success is going to be discontinued by the project's primary developer. LILO is such an important part of Linux history that it deserves a place is some kind of "hall of fame". But, it's open sourced so maybe -- just maybe -- someone will pick up the project so that it doesn't die. If not then it will be fondly remembered by those of us who were using Linux back in the olden days (1994 was my first install). Even if it's not continued the source code is informative, but the trolls will not understand that and just keep on using whatever their bootloader and praising whatever it is without understanding wtf it actually does and how the boot process actually works.
The first I read was The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe but at the time that was considered to be the one that should first be read. I know that some people prefer to read them in publication order, but I now like to read them in chronological order (i.e. with The Magician's Nephew first)
But, the MoU that the CCS and their CEO, and I expect SEO, EOC, PSS companies, PABs are all locked up into the same thing. It's obvious that the MOoP will go to the aforementioned people and organisations. There needs to be a PAOE regarding this decision which essentially equates to UVL giving Oracle PAPT. In the olden days, PO effectively influenced the issue of PMCs and if a PMC was enacted there would be a public outcry. Perhaps if people were given more fact then PAPT, MOoP and ESAs would be less prevalent. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case.
Commodore holdings or the Holden commodore
It's the Holden Commodore HSV SmartPhone
Clown on a unicycle
One interesting experiment displayed how cell phones contributed to inattentional blindness in basic tasks such as walking. The stimuli for this experiment was a brightly colored clown on a unicycle. The individuals participating in this experiment were divided into four sections. They were either talking on the phone, listening to an mp3 player, walking by themselves or walking in pairs. The study showed that individuals engaged in cell phone conversations were least likely to notice the clown. This experiment was designed by Ira E. Hyman, S. Matthew Boss, Breanne M. Wise, Kira E. Mckenzie and Jenna M. Caggiano at Western Washington University.
I postulate that paying attention to a display in the car instead of on the road is pretty similar to this. I rest my case.
It's called inattentive blindness
Then perhaps the driver should be less inattentive. I doubt that focusing attention on a screen in the car instead of the road, and what's on it, is going to improve this.
You misunderstand what I am said. The current corner/dip/bend is always there but it's basically an extension of the NEXT bit of road which you should be looking at and anticipating. Yes, of course the current corner/dip/bend must be illuminated so that you can see what's there... but the headlights should not concentrate themselves on that corner/dip/bend because your mind has already processed pretty much all that there is to see; although your current reactions are fast-forwarding to what's coming next the current situation is, of course, always in your "peripheral vision" (I use that term because although it's not really a peripheral the term conveys what I am trying to say the most accurately). If the headlights decide to move, concentrate and highlight what you've already seen and moved on from then seeing and processing the next situation is compromised.
Did I say that you should outdrive your headlights? No! That would be insanity. What I said (or meant) was that by moving the headlights point of highlight (which according to the admittedly lacking articles) is the current corner/dip/turn the driver's concentration moves from looking ahead to what is already a committed action.
The system spotlights hazards for the driver with a spot and a stripe on the road surface and highlighted objects are displayed on the screen inside the car
So... the driver has to take their eyes off the road (where they should be looking) to look at the screen inside the car?
“Many people who drive at night have had to quickly react to someone or something suddenly appearing in the road – as if from nowhere. Ford’s Camera-Based Advanced Front Lighting System and Spot Lighting help ensure the driver is quickly alerted to people or animals that could present a danger,” said Ken Washington, vice president, Ford Research and Advanced Engineering.
Yes, and you won't be able to do that when you're losing 500ms to 15 seconds of potential response time by looking at the screen in the car.
It seems that the more Australia's BoM relies on computer modelling the worse their predictions become. Honestly the predictions of 15-20 years ago were more accurate than the BoM has been able to produce in the last decade or so.
[...] and uses GPS information for enhanced lighting when encountering bends and dips on a chosen route [...]
What about those of use who are really looking at least 1 turn ahead of the current turn/bend/dip? Nobody who can actually drive is actually looking at the current turn, so why highlight it?
Do you live in America?
The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century. The State of Georgia for example was first founded by James Edward Oglethorpe by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison, creating a "Debtor's Colony". However, even though this largely failed, the idea that the state began as a penal has stayed both in popular history, and local lore. The British also would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland, and they would be treated similar to the convicts, except that this also included women and children.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (emphasis mine)
Strange that they let you stay there.
Pretty much anything but Fosters
It's bad. Seriously bad. And having lived in Australia all my life the only time I've tried Fosters was when it was on special and a good deal cheaper than beers that Australians actually drink, and I thought that I may as well give it a try. It's not as bad as Bud (yeah, not an Australian beer, just throwing it in there for comparison) or anything but it's pretty bad. Nobody I know drinks Fosters and I've never seen Fosters in an Australian's home fridge (and I do hang around all classes of Australians not just the ones who drink boutique beers). I'm not a beer snob or anything but if something tastes like shit I am not going to buy it no matter how cheap it might be. If it was cheap but acceptable then sure I'd keep it in my fridge for entertaining guests, but it's not acceptable and if I gave Fosters to people for free they'd laugh at me.
The one thing I've never done is actually research how Fosters became known as a beer that Australians drink. I might do that now... the story has got to be interesting. I guess.
186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.