Until you rise the fuck up.
Says the AC...
Until you rise the fuck up.
Says the AC...
That explains a lot. Really, "targeted at education" and "full datasheet not available" do not go together, except for the most stupid or most corrupt of players. I have been wondering how this incredibly stupid choice was made.
And if we always follow the fundamentalist way nothing will get done ever. The Pi isn't perfect, but it is good at what it does and ultimately it did get made and became popular... Hardware doesn't have to be totally open to be useful in teaching software, for example.
It's like Hurd vs Linux, you can have all the ideals you want but if you fail to make it work and popular, it's worthless.
The issue, or rather concern, with the on-card contact-less payments (VISA PayPass, etc.) is that someone could activate it while it was still in you wallet in your pocket via a specially designed (any maybe illegal; but that hasn't been known to stop thieves) hardware, and that this could be used a avenue for fraud. Not sure if there was ever a real life POC of this working or not.
Don't worry about it... I mean yes it is possible, but contactless has been widely rolled out in the UK for a while and the sky hasn't fallen. Ultimately you can challenge any bad charges pretty easily (if you notice them) on your statement, and since all this stuff goes tracably through the credit card system then it's not going to take many chargebacks for the dodgy reader to get them all rolled back and the criminal flagged.
Eight months? Wouldn't it be more efficient to learn programming(if needed), understand the layout of the map file, and write a script to generate this very well structured and organized hell on earth?
Couldn't that be said of any game? Write a better AI and let it play itself? Why do any gaming when programming is more efficient?
Sure, but the alternative of not having them at all is certainly not better. If there's that level of corruption (and I would believe there is) then cameras are going to help expose it.
Or will we one day hear, that, unfortunately, the cameras worn by the officers involved had "malfunctioned" at the most inopportune moment?
(Pay no attention to the remains of chewing gum around the lenses.)
Indeed, but then it will immediately put suspicion on the police officer, whereas at the moment there is nothing other than their sayso about what happened. Since police testimony is often implicitly trusted by magistrates and juries, I would much rather there be a 'but what happened to your camera?' defence than not at all.
To be fair, CVs are beasts that end up being read by people who are just keyword searching so you have to put every word you've ever vaguely come up against just to get past HR. There's a bunch of stuff I wouldn't want to be pushed too far on my CV... I figure I can work it out on the fly if necessary.
You have to trust the interviewer has a good idea what is actually necessary for the job and isn't just on a catch-them-out power trip. Hopefully the original poster does actually need C knowledge.
Ah, I didn't know they'd actually changed. Still, if there's no point (and your link says so) then I'm not sure why you would change the voltage just to be nominally at the correct level, in preference to being technically within the allowed limits.
Uh no, since the year 2000 all of the EU, that includes the UK, runs on 230V.
Uh no, the standard voltage for mains power across the EU is 230V +/- 10%. The UK runs 240V, and still does. The continent runs 220V, and still does. The standard was picked because of EUs love of standards, but everybody knows that practically 220V=240V so they picked half way inbetween, with a tolerance, and called it a day.
So it is good to have them - I agree, I also have this warm fuzzy feeling when I think about all these nukes stationed nearby.
However it seems to me that you did not understand the question - which was : what to do with deterrent if there is nobody to deter?
Given that you don't know that there's not going to be anyone to deter - you can't be sure now and definitely not about 20 years in the future - you keep it. Russia is hardly a benign friend now.
There's a big jump from "thankfully we don't seem to have a need for this anymore" to "we can get rid of them permanently because they will never be useful again"
The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.
Thing is, *is* that the only requirement, and is it going to be the requirement in 20 years, 40 years? I can't say, of course nobody can, so I'd rather keep it.
The whole currency exchange actually increased the share of the "Yes" vote. The whole patronising attitude of the Westminster parties had the opposite to intended effect.
Course it's quite hard not to be patronising to an opponent who seems to think currency union will happen because he wishes it, even though the other party in the union has said that it won't.
It could do that fine from North England. The problem is there just isn't a good place for a sub pen in England. Scotland meanwhile has loads of deep tidal water safely tucked miles from coast.
Don't start using actual practical reality now when we can hand wave apparent Westminster anti-Scottishness!
Thing is, the UK parties hate, hate, hate the thought of secession. So if they think being uncooperative on the pound will help scare Scots to stay in the union, they'll do that.
But once secession is a fact, that posturing will likely be dropped. UK is probably better served with Scotland staying with the pound than switching to the Euro.
Why? We've *just*... *just* seen how badly a currency union without political union can go in the (ongoing) Euro crisis. Why do you think that's a good idea suddenly now, especially when the direction of integration is going in the wrong direction, towards more divergence. You can't have successful monetary union without shared fiscal policy, and why would Scotland want that after all the effort of independence?
The americans have enough already
Ultimately, yes, because you can't expect another country, even a close ally, to risk nuclear war for you. The UK can't guarantee that the States would retaliate if necessary, especially since they would be bringing likely retaliation, and millions of American citizens deaths, on themselves. Nuclear warheads suck, but once you have them you damn well keep them, otherwise the deterrent doesn't work.
"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries