I think it depends on the level of exposure to BASIC. If it is only minimal exposure, the concept of variables, arrays, loops, etc are transferable. If the exposure has got to the point of replacing a DO loop with a series of GOTOs, I agree, all hope is lost
Previously, the highest rating available for games was MA15+ (Mature Audiences), which is meant for 15-18 year olds. If a game was not able to fit in this category for any reason (language, sex, nudity, etc), then it was placed in Refuse Classification. There are other ways for a game to receive an RC status, such as promoting serious crimes, pedophilia, etc. Note that RC exists for films, books and magazines too - its just that these other categories have R18 and X18 categories available, meaning there is much greater scope for being able to correctly rate a piece of media.
And don't be fooled by the term RC. It is legal to purchase or possess RC material (with exceptions such as child pornography), but illegal to sell, publish and show in public. Import restrictions prevent importing RC material, but AFAIK, the case of if downloading is considered importing was never defined in legislation, nor tested in court.
It's also noteworthy that the idiot we have a Federal Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, is planning to have his mandatory Internet filter block all RC content. Before this new legislation, a screenshot from a game not suitable for 15 years would have been blocked for every Australian, if the filter was already in place. There is a review happening on the RC category, but considering there has been significant noise about the R18+ category for games happening for a good 5 years, I can't see much else changing.
Much more powerful equipment in the manned choppers though. The current fleet has FLIR, pilot NVG, high zoom cams - plus the whatever other gear they use which is not publicly acknowledged.
If you think a drone is capable of the same surveillance as a twin engine manned chopper, I think you need to do some research on how much decent gear weighs vs the payload of a small UAS.
I learnt how to throw and catch them on grade 4 camp as well. Never had to use the skill since, though
Ahh, plenty of ways to escalate access from an email server comprise...
Send an email to another admin, asking them to reset your password
Look through old emails for a "reset password" email
Use your new shell access to exploit a local (not network facing) vulnerability
No problems - plenty more info on wikipedia and aviation blogs going into more details if you want to research further
In any fly-by-wire aircraft, the computers will return the aircraft to a normal flight attitude. So the A330 has reduced aerodynamic postive stability (still above neutral), but the computer involvement makes up for this. Of course, when you lose the pitots, the computers drop from normal law to alternate law, which means they stop intervening in some situations, and instead warn the pilots. The prime example is a stall - you can't stall an A330 when running in normal law, as the computers will manipulate the control surfaces to prevent this. In alternate law, the computers are unsure of the full picture, due to failed inputs, so they warn the pilots of a stall. In this case, you have lost some of the stability introduced by the computers - there is some stability there, but when you are pulling back on the side stick while stalling in a storm, no amount of positive stability is going to correct it.
Positive stability doesn't fix all situations. If you have too low a power setting, out of trim, CG not correct or even strong external forces (such as a storm), the a positively stable aircraft can fail to stabilise itself.
Think of your car steering wheel. When you turn, it takes effort to move away from straight, and you feel continued pressure to return to straight. If you let go of the wheel, it will return to a straight position. This is positive stability. If your car had neutral stability, it would take much less effort (ie no resistance) to move away from the straight position, and if you let go of the wheel, it would stay in the turned position you left it in. If you had negative stability, turning the wheel would induce a force in the direction of your turn, encouraging and pulling the wheel further into the direction of turn. Letting go of the wheel would cause a turn to full lock. As you can imagine, this negative stability provides much more maneuverability, but requires computes to be able to bring the wheel back to central when the pilot indicates as such through the control column.
You are referring to "positive stability", which is absolutely designed into the non fly-by-wire aircraft, such as the smaller Cessna's, Piper's, etc. With a fly-by-wire aircraft, the computers can handle the stability by making fine adjustments, leading the designers to make the aircraft closer to neutral stability. More the positively stable an aircraft is, the more aggressively it returns to a normal flight level, but you lose maneuverability. Commercial jets being closer to neutral stability, gives them more maneuverability, and slightly better fuel consumption.
Have you heard the claim that modern air force jets need X number of computers to stay in the air? This is due to them being designed with negative stability, meaning any pilot induced oscillation will grow larger and larger, therefor the computers are required to compensate for the lack of aerodynamic positive stability. The negative stability gives them a massive amount of maneuverability.
It's not a canard at all, completely different principles. A canard is designed so that the forward wing will always stall before the main wing, ensuring that the entire aircraft has significant positive stability. Combined with the benefits of a pusher propolsution, you get a stable yet maneuverable aircraft.
Designing a bi-plane to reduce the sonic boom is resolving a completely different problem, using completely different designs.
I can't believe
How about some actual details on the new clock, which certainly won't be found on the Aussie tabloids.
Claims of QANTAS never having a fatal crash are wrong. They have never had a jet crash with fatalities, but they have had non-jet fatal crahes, incidents on jets being fatal (such as workers falling onto the tarmac), and they most certainly have had passengers die in flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qantas_fatal_accidents is a start, and google can point you in the direction of more fatal incidents.
you can use USB ports on any server in the data center if you're working away from the office.