Re: "as much value as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory"
The rockets won't fire, dear Lisa, dear Lisa.
The rockets won't fire, dear Lisa, won't burn
2258 posts • joined 19 Mar 2012
"And after all that carnage, the world's leaders came together and decided they had to come up with some kind of document that would help prevent it all from happening again."
War... War never changes.
No document is going to stop the carnage when things kick off again globally or locally. Conflicts bring out the worst in humanity and horrid things will be done. Then we'll eventually come to our senses and say: "Never again".
I doubt they'd risk it for a Dragon 2 flight. They're on a time crunch there and I doubt NASA would like them using this booster and risking a failed test (RUDing the booster doesn't give valid results if it happens before MaxQ).
I also have my doubts they'll be able to reuse it in the first place. Musk was very sure of himself when he tweeted, but that's before they've seen the actual booster. That thing toppling into the water like that must have done some damage to the (top) interstage section.
The mice probably couldn't give a rats about a little mould on their food bars. The problem is that mould spores get into the air distribution system of the ISS and spread everywhere. It becomes very hard to eliminate mould once it sets in because of the sheer amount of hiding space it has in a system like the ISS.
The old USSR/Russian MIR station suffered from mould problems through the later stages of it's existence. The ISS is dealing with it better because of regular cleaning and a requirement in design that nearly all spaces have to be accessible for said cleaning.
This is the US we're talking about where puritanism still reigns supreme. Female nipples will turn women gay at the slightest glimpse and even the mere hint of an aureole will turn men into depraved sex fiends who spend their days tugging their bit and performing depraved acts with hookers.
" (They've had to do this because it's impossible to give the 737 design longer landing gear)"
Not impossible, just undesirable for the market the 737 operates in and for certification purposes. The advantage of the 737 design (and why it had originally been designed that way) is that the low ground clearance allows easy ground service to almost all relevant parts of the aircraft with easy methods (stepladders and low moveable scaffolds) where competitors require more safety equipment because the worker needs to be higher up. Redesigning the landing gear to put the plane higher off the ground would be easy but would necessitate a huge amount of new equipment be bought by customers all over the world. Customers that might be more likely to go to the competitor in that case.
On top of that the landing gear is a very important bit of the aircraft and so structurally intertwined with the entire design of the main fuselage and inner wing spar section that a change in main gear leg length would necessitate a substantial redesign of the main wing spar, which would then require certification as an entirely new aircraft design instead of being allowed to be certified as a modification of the original 737 type air worthiness certification.
However, if the pilot isn't aware of MCAS and the way it behaves, and isn't trained on the procedure to prevent this they might not know ANY of those. The situation and system response caused by MCAS is different from the trained "Runaway trim" procedure, as the system still responds (and stops trimming for a short while) when a trim up command is given or the trim wheel is manually moved. Thus I can imagine following the runaway trim procedure isn't the first thing that comes to mind for a pilot when MCAS goes mad.
This sort of false positive because of blue coloring could easily be avoided with a control test. A second bag of liquid that should NOT color in the presence of methamphetamine, MDMA or Ritalin (plain distilled water?) compare the 2. If both are equal shades of blue it's a negative result (ofcourse the comparison would have to be made side-by-side over the same lightsource, but a somewhat even tempered lightsource should be used to judge these tests to begin with).
The reason for it being girls is simple economics. The viewers are by far predominantly straight males most attracted to pretty women. So putting attractive women around the car is more likely to keep get/keep them watching. Sexist, yeah probably a little bit, but that's the way it's been for all of humanity. I don't get the push to suddenly pretend we males aren't simple creatures when it comes to what we like seeing. Just having some women stand around looking attractive isn't exactly going to do much to harm egality of women.
I am disappointed El Reg. Deeply dissappointed.
Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached,thy shalt flip the bits of thyne foe, , who, being naught in My sight, shall offer thee all in his land.
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup languag eain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language
YAML ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language ain't markup language
It's just turtles all the way down..
Whomever came up with this recursive acronym deserves a swift kick to the family jewels.
This just doesn't work. Not everybody is suitable for political work. Not all stuff politicians do and speak about can be public knowledge. Some of it is indeed privacy sensitive and needs to be kept secret. And you'd better pay the same or more as what they are currently making or some people will refuse. Threatening with jail time is not going to work either because no-one is going to a good job on a job they are forced to do. So everything gets half-arsed and "good enough"-ed. Which is a good way to even more mediocrity than we get now.
The ones not built into a wall are usually bolted to the floor. When it comes to access to compromise a machine I think the wall mounted units are actually more vulnerable as they usually have an enclosed backroom for access while filling the machine. The front is usually entirely sealed, but that backroom can be accessed by bribing the right sales clerk or shop owner, who probably also has access to the video recording equipment to accidentally switch it off or spill some coffee a day ahead of the attack. And once the attacker is in the backroom he is out of view and can do his nefarious deeds undisturbed. Hanging around in public is usually more visible. Though the blatant "put on a polo shirt with the banks logo, walk in and put up some barriers, open the machine and get to work" approach will probably also work. People are surprisingly unquestioning if you wear a correct looking outfit and act like what you are doing is completely normal.
There's a similar statistic for almost anything you'll find. Even cars. Some people collect guns. So a person has managed to collect (amongst others) a Mauser pistol of every type ever made, or every known variant of the Luger. Or every full size cartridge service rifle the French military ever adopted. Or a whole slew of antique muzzle loading firearms. That's just 4 examples of collections I know exist. And that's just 4 people with over 30 different firearms each. All of them capable of being fired, none of them actually ever likely to be used because the (historic) value of the arms in question far exceeds their practicality, usability as a firearm and the risk of loss in value if it gets damaged doing so. Collectors of anything tend to skew the average a little. We don't all own 30 cars. But if we look at a 1000 random people and Jay Leno happens to be in the group, you might just come to that conclusion.
@A.P. Veening, NO, Dutch police are NOT trained to shoot at the legs. If the decision is made to shoot it is up to the discretion of the officer to attempt to incapacitate, but it is NOT specifically practiced and it is NOT policy. If a police officer decides to use a deadly weapon it's usually with the full intend to remove an immediate and deadly threat. And doing that requires deadly force. The difference is that in the Netherlands (and most of the rest of the world) officers are trained to shoot once or twice and assess the effect. Not for everyone present to unload their weapon into the person. Being shot once or twice (even in the torso) can be quite survivable if first aid is started immediately (also a standard in the Netherlands). In the US the standard seems to be for the victim of a police shooting to have atleast 6 to 8 rounds in them and for them to then be handcuffed, manhandled and left to bleed and choke to death while the police officers stand around. I doubt many of them are even trained in first aid. (Again, a standard in most of the civilized world)
Probably at some point thought up by a large company to prevent employees with a grudge from making their life difficult.
Edit: reading the wiki page it seems it also prevents someone from later infringing their own patent after they've sold it because they found an "insider" way that makes it invalid.
So say, Tom sells a patent to Jerry. Tom then later brings out a product that infringes that patent and gets sued by Jerry for said infringement of the patent Jerry now legally owns. Tom is now not allowed to claim invalidity of the patent because he's the one who invented it and if he knows about something that makes it invalid he should have disclosed such to Jerry before the sale. It's to prevent "have your cake and eat it too" scenarios.
You should worry about the X, not the 6 in your IP rating. The first digit stands for the intrusion protection, with 1 offering no protection 2 basically protecting against sticking your hand in Through 7 protecting from all dust. (6 is protection from any dust which may harm the device). The second digit indicates the moisture protection. In your case you'd want something atleast rated IPX7 rated, more likely an IPX8. (water jets, and immersion respectively)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018