Re: fingers crossed
Is it me, or is the Reg once again neglecting to mention SpaceX's successful land, er, landing?
1771 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
Is it me, or is the Reg once again neglecting to mention SpaceX's successful land, er, landing?
I'm no fool! That's David Bowie!
Hardly. They were profitable up to the end of 2013, which demonstrates that they have the ability. They may end up like Amazon, which has never posted a profit in its entire history as far as I can tell.
That's because they aren't studying uses of polarisation, but using a polarised beam to study orbital angular momentum, which is not dependent on polarisation.
Except it's nothing to do with polarisation.
It creates a precedent for the dismantlement of sovereign unions. If the UK leaves the EU, it's a lot harder for the government of the day to then turn around and say "but Scotland should stay in our union!" without some people perceiving their actions as hypocrisy.
Personally I'd argue quite strongly for Scotland to remain within an independent the UK, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be given another chance to vote on the matter at that point. At the very least there needs to be a fundamental reconsideration of how the UK is governed.
So, to clarify: you ignore everything that proves your assertions wrong, repeatedly declare your initial claim as if it were truth, and then wait for everyone to get bored and go home whereupon you declare yourself the winner.
Have you ever considered a career in politics?
The cameras on the rocket - the important ones that can used to visually assess performance and which, crucially, operate in a much more extreme environment than the barge camera - were working just fine for the entire flight. The fact that they can get a reliable video feed from a camera parked right next to a rocket exhaust, operating in a vacuum and in a very high orbit tells me that they have all the engineering skills, knowledge and experience necessary for this sort of thing.
Like the man said, the barge camera isn't a high priority and is treated accordingly.
Zip-ties on their limbs, duct-tape on the mouths to keep them quiet.
Not that I've spent any time thinking about things like this...
NO (to coin a phrase)
The TV license doesn't cover the equipment, it covers the live broadcast reception. If your television is installed and used to receive live television broadcasts then you need the license. This includes time-shifting - recording and playback later. If your television is installed for the intent of playing back pre-recorded video then you do not need a license. I know this, because I've had a television for the last decade and not paid a TV license - because I don't watch live television. I don't record television. I don't even use iplayer, live or otherwise. I watch DVDs, I play games, sometimes I watch youtube. I've checked this with TVL themselves and they reluctantly agreed that I don't need a license (though they still send me their threatening letters every so often).
The license is not for the equipment, but for the use you put it to.
It's amazing how you can manage to be more and more wrong with every sentence you write.
Sorry, should have been clearer. It's a reserved character in URI paths specifically. The post I was answering was blathering about how URIs contain a colon after the protocol and seemed to be comparing that to the colon after the drive letter in windows.
Never mind that : can be a drive letter...
It's use in uris is to delineate protocol, username and password. These are not part of the path, where the colon is a reserved character.
Very nice, LDS, but we're talking about file paths and mounted filesystems, not protocols. For the record, the file protocol that every os recognises is file://. A windows file url would resemble file:///c|/foo/bar
Bring back Gopher.
The protocol applies to lasers designed specifically as blinding weapons. These are laser pointers, not weapons; it's the same distinction as between a kitchen knife and a bayonet, or a nailgun and a pistol. Both can be used to cause harm but only one of each of the examples is designed for that purpose. The protocol doesn't apply to lasers which are designed to act as pointing devices. The wiki page even points out a number of military exceptions to the protocol.
It's jake, what did you expect?
It's not the anonymous ones they have to worry about.
Hate to nitpick (actually when I'm right love to nitpick) but iron will fuse quite happily with enough energy and pressure. What it can't do is produce more energy in that fusion than is consumed by the process which, as you rightly say, kills the whole reaction stone-dead in short order.
Either way, earth isn't going to turn into a flaming ball of self-sustained nuclear fusion any time soon.
I think the conclusion to be drawn from this is that all computers are a bit site.
"That's still small beer compared with a few litres of liquid oxygen. Want to see steel burn to white hot rust? Want to see diamonds on fire beneath the surface?"
And when the insurance claims start piling in, all these memories will be lost, like tears in rain.
oooh, well look at this la de da mister fancy pants posh man, pronouncin the aitch in soli'ull!
Perhaps if they had said "large passenger jets". Military cargo planes favour high wings for structural reasons - a high-wing craft can have a larger internal bay - and to mitigate the possibility of their engines ingesting a large portion of the landing strip at makeshift airfields.
If you and he are right then your agreement is also a delusion and doesn't matter.
More reasons to shop at morrisons, I guess...
I suggest perhaps trying a different approach. Start by suggesting a distro by name, talk through the high-level advantages. Don't start blasting them with jargon. If they aren't capable of making informed decisions then you have to help them, and that means you have to narrow their choices and present them with options that you think might actually benefit.
Or you could keep being a stuck-up, pretentious nerd who likes to show off how much they think they know by flinging jargon and superfluous trivia around. They'd react exactly the same way if you started blathering on about the history of the Windows NT kernel, GDI and the necessity of using powershell in certain situations.
The spitfire was never designed as a bomber escort. Its purpose from the very start was as an interceptor, a role that it fulfilled admirably (though the Hurricane outperformed it in the interception of German bombers and their escorting heavy fighters). RAF doctrine for the early part of world war 2 did not call for mass-escorted daytime bomber fleets, but lone, unescorted, raiders. Because of this, bomber escort wasn't considered necessary until well into the war, and by the time any serious thought was being given to purpose-built heavy fighters the role was already being rendered largely obsolete by technological advances, doctrinal changes and the fact that Germany had been driven back within her own borders - meaning that escorts didn't have to fly as far in the first place.
Except they aren't selling the rockets, they're selling use of them.
Webbing would not guarantee a stable stop. In order for it to not be destroyed by the rocket exhaust the engine would have to cut out quite some distance above it, in the range of tens of metres or more, which means a long unpowered drop toward a hard surface and a net that will be much more likely to fail than a controlled landing. Rocket goes crack, knackered components, fuel everywhere, big boom.
To make the net robust enough to catch the rocket without tearing apart you'd have to make it of some highly elastic material that still has a very high tensile strength, which means you're then dropping your rocket several tens of metres onto a giant trampoline, which will guarantee that your rocket begins to ascend with the wrong parts pointing toward the sky and descend shortly afterwards in an unpredictable location. So, even if the net holds, you have something taller than a house and full of volatile fuel flinging itself about in random directions and making an uncontrolled landing. Assuming it doesn't explode, the engines will almost certainly be damaged beyond repair by the impact.
Your docking clamp idea suffers the same problems of height and heat and adds a shitton of unnecessary complexity as well, not to mention time and fuel use. The rocket would have to come to a stop to be grabbed by the clamp, which means it would have to hover in place, using more fuel than a controlled landing and obviating the clamp's entire purpose - if you can hover the rocket, you can land the rocket, and that means you don't need the clamp. The reason why it has to hover is simple: if the rocket is still moving, it will impart energy to the clamp, by which I mean it will damage a complex piece of machinery. That adds repair time. It adds risk. There's also the very likely outcome of the clamp damaging the rocket, which more than likely results in - again - a big boom, at which point you've not only lost your engines, but you've also destroyed your docking clamp and have to rebuild it.
This is all assuming you're on a stable surface too. On the barge, you'd either have that big net swinging around like a trebuchet or you'd have the clamp waving about like a gigantic bat just waiting to slap the returning stage out of the sky.
So that's why.
Yes, actually, they do. Usually it's written along the lines of "X had yet to respond to requests for information at the time of publication", or words to that effect. It informs the reader that the article is incomplete and may be updated or may be followed if X ever decides to call back.
As you're leading us to infer, Nokia's attempt at a linuxy phone failed more due to marketing and internal divisional conflicts than anything about the quality of the device.
<insert something about criminals going in through the wide open windows here>
They use RP-1, essentially kerosene, which is also used in the first stage of Soyuz, the Delta family of rockets, Atlas and Zenit, and was used on the Saturn V first stage as well. It's pretty much the standard rocket fuel. The nazis used ethanol.
More than anything it was people saying "No george, that's stupid" in the originals that made them so great.
the first Star Wars as written was tight as an orphan's belt. The pacing was nearly perfect, at least partly in thanks to editors who told Lucas where he could stick his opinions. Nobody can do that now; he's too powerful. Nobody says no to him.
Without fail, practically every scene that was added to the remasters killed the pacing stone dead. Lucas has no idea about pacing, which is obvious from watching the prequels, which are a complete mess of meandering, go-nowhere scenes and pointless spectacle.
But that's George for you. He thought people liked Star Wars for the spectacle of its special effects, which brought him to blows with Irvin Kershner, who reckoned that telling a strong story about well-rounded characters was the key to success. Given that Kershner is the mind that brought us Empire and Lucas the one that brought us the CGI-laden farce that was the prequels, I think it's clear who was right.
the problem isn't that they've made the haystack bigger - you can still find a needle in an arbitrarily large haystack if you think and maybe use a magnet. The problem is that, by designating everyone as a potential suspect at all times, they've replaced the hay with needles and are now trying to find one needle amongst millions.
Off can mean deactivated, functionally an equivalent of death. La petite mort?
We've still got the HMS Victory in drydock. She could probably be made seaworthy again without too much fuss.
Think they'll try competing with node. js?
3rd edition was probably the last good one.I still have my colonel schaefer's last chancers veteran unit lurking around here, a couple of cadian squads and a pair of leman russ, all done up in desert camo. I was pretty proud of that lot.
Then the dropped schaefer's squad before turning it into that generic shitty "penal legion". Basically every change since 3.5 has been one step or several further into the swamp. I gave up pretty quickly, not having the money to afford their rocketing prices, and abandoned the whole thing entirely for greener pastures. Looked back recently, find out they've completely nuked warhammer fantasy and dropped nearly everything that made the 40K world interesting, and realised that I'd got out at a pretty good time.
type node.js into your search engine of choice
They mean that hillary is the democrat equivalent of dick.
I tried getting a job at my local Aldi once. Non-starter. They were full and expected no vacancies, unlike Tesco and Asda's constantly overturning workforce.
Been over a week and I still can't work out why I got downvotes for this. All I did was give a subjective opinion and then suggest a way people with similar thoughts might be better educated on the subject...
I keep seeing this mention of dual sim being a killer feature on a phone but I've honestly never encountered anyone in the wild who uses such a feature. It makes me wonder what sort of fields would favour something like that. Maybe el reg could do a survey?
Parse the sentence carefully. There's a change of subject from "the government" to "we". He never addresses the idea that "the government" wants to ban encryption, he only says that GCHQ doesn't want to ban it, presumably because suitably holed encryption is far better for GCHQ than no encryption. No encryption means subjects of interest make use of other, more secure means of communication. Encryption riddled with secret access tunnels means you get enough misplaced trust trust in the existing communication methods to give GCHQ a chance of nabbing someone.
I have a logitech C170 on my computer. Plugged it in, all worked instantly, even with the complete and utter shitefest that is Skype for Linux.
I don't know why people make such patently false claims like this when they know they're going to be proven wrong. I guess some people can't help themselves.