XSLT, dear god.
Does your workplace include nets on the stairs?
XSLT, dear god.
Does your workplace include nets on the stairs?
You are thinking from your experience of flying a bug smasher.
The airport is clearly designed for larger planes and would be managed by a tower.
Most of your issues are solved by simply doing as the tower instructs.
Landing on a runway with a curve is certainly doable, I've known pilots to land on all sorts of odd surfaces. Many of the issues about traction etc. can be trivially solved by making the circle a bit bigger.
The excitement of managing the airspace is touched upon in the Business Insider article but not really fleshed out and I believe handling it in practice would diminish many of the suggested benefits.
The standard single runway is currently managed with a basic queue (simplified version). The planes circle in large loop around the airport. The airspace controller lines them up on a fixed marker above the end of the runway and they are passed on to the control tower for the landing. Take off is the same in reverse, they lift off, fly to a fixed marker and are then handed from the tower to the airspace controller.
Running a circular runway with three approaches would be doable, you would have three fixed approach markers, the same process would be used. Issues like turbulence from adjacent planes would need to be managed but this is standard in a multi-runway airport and would actually be greatly improved compared to two parallel approaches.
Once you start rotating the approaches with the wind things start getting far more exciting. Dynamic marker points aren't going to work, too much communication required and futzing around to communicate the approach point to every plane. So you are going to have to have multiple fixed sets, keeping it simple with only 3 options, 3 approach markers, 3 departure markers you have a total of 27 waypoints in a tight area around the airport. The odds of a plane flying to the wrong waypoint is huge (multiply it out by the number of flights a day, the number of passengers in a plane etc) and the consequences catastrophic, without extensive changes to the way planes are managed the risks are just far too high.
He may well be a troll. Entirely possible. But the videos I've thus far seen were not of a trollish cast, and the "Death to All Jews" one in particular is not remotely anti-semitic. [trimmed ad hominem attack]
I didn't say he was anti-semitic, I don't believe that he is. I said that he is an attention whore. The entire reason he asked for THAT phrase to be written was to get a reaction.
If he was truly horrified by what he and they did, as he claimed in the video, he could have solved the problem by simply not posting the video. Instead he posted it and got waves of free publicity.
This is part of a campaign:
I am disgusted by this article, almost as disgusted as I am at myself taking the time to respond to it.
PewDiePie is a professional attention whore and it is fascinating to watch him ply his craft. This latest response is perfectly timed, just as the flames were dying down he fans them and gets another round of attention.
He is a troll and like any troll the way to defeat it is by ignoring it.
Some conferences are great for sharing ideas, meeting people in the field and learning some really awesome stuff. Most of these make recordings of the talks available but being there and being able to chat to a speaker over breakfast or a talking with someone over a beer who is tackling the same problems you are can be invaluable. You learn about new techniques, new approaches, the latest trick from field Y which may be applicable to your field X and just have a really good time.
Some conferences are shit money grabs which operate as scams and should be avoided. As a hint, look at the reputation for the conference and who is paying. If companies can buy ('sponsor') speaker slots then you are going to be subjected to sales pitches.
A good employer wants a happy employee that grows within the company, expanding their skills and adding more value over time. They can't be too concerned that you will get poached, if you are not happy you are going to leave anyway. Sending you to a conference is a way of investing in you, increasing your skill level and making you a more valuable employee.
People around here hate C# (those that do) because it's from MS. When it comes to MS, there are no technical merits that can redeem the technology. They are not rational people. Most of them probably don't even program for a living.
As a former Visual Basic programmer I will not base my livelihood on a MS programming language. Who knows when MS announces the next shiny programming language, declares my companies existing code base obsolete and expects everyone to repeat the same mistake.
I do not view this as irrational in the least.
All binary & lib dirs linked in
Story time: [...]
Of course they know why
As for shifting everything to root, I agree reflexively but there are advantages to having
The Bottom Line though is this is a change to the default. Debian does and will continue in the future to support both arrangements. So long as people see advantages in having a separated
Looking at the still-supported LTR kernels, even the oldest one isn't all that old.
For network-connected embedded systems (routers, network-connected printers, IoT, etc.), I would want a kernel that had security-but-patch-maintenance for at least the useful life of the hardware itself - 5-10 years in most cases, longer in some cases like cars, refrigerators, etc.
If you are designing a device like this and care about maintaining for security then you need to have a continual, preferably over the air, upgrade system in place.
Given that you would be looking at several libc updates over that period upgrading a kernel major version should be expected and not a significant problem. You would be much better off investing more in the update and recovery system than backporting kernel security fixes for ten years.
Sure, C gotos are the cleanest solution in a few specific cases and sometimes I get frustrated in higher level languages that lack it.
However I still demonise gotos when teaching coding because it should be use carefully and sparingly. New programmers often see it as a versatile stick that can solve all their problems, and while it can make the code "work" we moved on from spaghetti code for a reason.
My personal rule is that a goto should only ever go down the code and never into new blocks.
(except for implementing a try/catch system using longjump, every rule has an exception...)
How they will [ban] something which can be implemented in a simple php script with a common is library is beyond me.
It is rather easy actually, I'll lay it out step by step.
1. You, a UK citizen, create service with encryption.
2. The UK government sends you a letter advising you to disable the encryption for them or go to jail.
3A. You disable the encryption.
3B. You go to jail, the government seizes your service and disables the encryption.
Or are you just banned from storing recordings of the game where the terrorists win?
The risk of a collision is relatively low as they most commonly separate by altitude and a 70km horizontal deviation probably wouldn't reach another flight path.
It does screw up separation monitoring and safety management programs fairly badly though. Some plans also have ADS-B based collision alert systems too, which would cause lots of panic if they went off.
I am blown away that the 787s cockpit network is so bad that it routinely drops position data packets. Often enough that it frequently loses multiple sequential packets and the firmware developers implemented a dead reckoning system to plaster over the issue. How do you screw up a network that badly?
There's lots of actual video evidence against the Palestinian side as well. It's a propaganda war.
Sure, but we aren't discussing proposals to sensor the Israeli material.
"Roman Polanski makes his own blood. He's smart -- that's why his movies work." -- A brilliant director at "Frank's Place"