People in the states sleep rough in far greater numbers than in europe
We would all be thinner too if you could just walk a bit more. Sitting on your ass in AC and only walking to and from the car is not how humans were designed to live. Otherwise we wouldn't get so many damn health problems from sedentary inactive lifestyles.
Interesting article about the mess in the MTA http://secondavenuesagas.com/2...
I have seen some of the biggest rats ever this summer here. I thought one of them was a possum at night yesterday.
You make the decision to use public transit when you decide where to live in my experience. So it doesn't matter that fares are free when you never meant to take it in the first place.
Well America just prefers to ignore the homelessness problem a lot of times on governmental levels. So you have homeless people finding ways to find "accommodation" on transit instead of sleeping rough. Tons of American homeless sleep rough, whereas in Europe they have more shelter.
You are going to have homeless and unclean people taking mass transit as long as you have homeless people. The problem gets worse because people like you avoid seeing them more and more and become unaware of the problem. Out of sight, out of mind. I see them everyday and have learned to deal with them. The problem is not that they really impose on people that much, usually (there is the occasional exception in my experience in NYC), its just that people don't want to see them.
The dirtiness sucks and is totally inexcusable in my opinion. People in the city need to follow the rules and the MTA needs to seriously step up the number of cleanings they do in the stations per month. There was an article about this recently in the news up here and the MTA is way behind on its target cleaning numbers.
FIFA let the US win....right....right. Watch out for them black helicopters and trucks buddy, cause you know they ARE chasing you.
Verizon is in the business to make money - Providing access to Internet is just one of the by-products of Verizon's quest in making money
When Verizon promised to provide FIOS to NYC it hinged on one thing - profits
Verizon will do whatever it can to provide the best kind of net access to places where it knows it can get plenty of ROI - such as Wall Street
On the other hand, places such as the Bronx, where the only real way to make money is to sell drugs, where is the impetus for Verizon to provide FIOS there?
You don't know anything about the Bronx outside of the movies. There are tons of middle-class & working-class neighborhoods where there are absolutely no crack or drug problems. Verizon could make a ton of money in the Bronx as well as plenty of neighborhoods outside of FiDi (Wall Street).
This is an infrastructure issue with tons of politics, corrupt city officials, fucked up Verizon execs, greedy landlords, and tenants stuck in the middle of a giant clusterfuck. For instance I know for a fact that Verizon FIOS is available to my building but my landlord is not required by the city to provide us with ISP options. So we just get fucking one and, surprise, surprise, it costs out the ass. There is nothing free market about it, we are held hostage to our landlord's ISP choices (and god knows if he gets kick backs from the ISP). My landlord is content to suck on the cities tit for all of the infrastructure it provides him (mostly at our cost as tax payers) and charge seriously fucking high rent. But when it comes to moving a hand to provide us with a choice of ISP, he won't move an inch.
Why don't you stick (and whoever the fuck up-voted your post) to not commenting about cities you don't know anything about outside of blatant stereotypes.
I don't think the A-10 (or even a replacement) is meant to go head to head with the best AA systems that the enemy has to offer. It is meant to loiter around behind the front until called in for close air support. I am guessing that some kind of air defense suppression unit would precede the A-10 type aircraft so that it could operate and do its job.
I understand that AA systems are much more mobile and have higher performance than when the A-10 was designed so maybe a replacement that has higher performance or is harder for modern AA to target would be in order. But to say that close in air support aircraft are obsolete seems a pretty brash thing to say.
They do have the VTOL working, but at huge costs I have heard. They have had to make airframe modifications that have cost some of the stealthy features. Then there is the really light payload of missiles and super small gun ammo capacity. Even if it could maneuver well for dog fighting it would run out of ammo way before the Russian, Chinese counterparts.
The stupid STOVL capabilities killed it. The Swiss-Army Jet is a stupid idea
C yes. But does it really matter when Swift provides a clear way to interact with lower level C APIs? C++ is a problem though, because you currently have to use Objective-C++ to make the bridge. A good example of this is the Core Audio/OpenGL helper/utility code. Most of that is written in C++. You will need to have Objective-C to make the bridge to that very helpful code. And I imagine this is a very common situation with the relationship between low level C apis and C++ utilities written to make writing for he C APIs less labor intensive. Maybe that situation will change as code is ported from C++ to Swift..
Its interface with cross-platform libraries like OpenGL/CL/etc... might give a tip I would believe. I am working on an app that uses quite a bit of OpenGL for 3D animations. Swift has had a rough start with bindings to lower level code, but it appears to be getting a lot better with version 1.2. Also the rules for interacting with unsafe code are pretty straightforward, when they work as designed lol. The situation is getting better in my experience.
The interface between Swift and Objective-C++, the lack thereof, is kind of concerning to me. And when you bring in Objective-C++ to wrap your C++11 code you forfeit the new module based headers which can be a pain.
You also don't have a pre-processor in Swift currently but there are some facilities to interact with the compiler and tell it which code you need to interface with your system.
The compiler works on ARM and x86 so thats a start. I would imagine that targeting JVM would not be hard?
Yes, this, in my experience, still holds. I have heard many nerds make a case that Android should be the choice to develop for first and foremost (or even as a total equal). But those that write the checks still want to develop for iOS first and foremost quite a bit of the time.
Even less well known... They almost slid off a mountain because they were testing Tang based margarita mix.