That MIGHT depend on the nature of the mechanism. If it is wired so that button press activates the solinoid to pull back and release is necessary for ity to move forward again, then one press can only ever fire one round.
The world is flat. This is a scientific principle that pre-dates the Greek.
When literally nobody knows the entirety of the law anymore (because there's too much of it for that) INCLUDING the legislature and SCOTUS (they have to look it up all the time), then ignorance of the law really IS an excuse even if it isn't accepted as one.
The elephant in the courtroom is that pretty much everyone has no choice but to do what seems right and hope for the best.
People voluntarily wash their windshield while driving all the time. They also drive in the rain, even heavy rain.
People's cars stall on the highway all the time. At no point was he in the situation your link talks about. Even if he had been on the shoulder, that too happens all the time and rarely leads to a problem.
Like I said, cars stall on the highway all the time. Then they are freewheeling AND they lose power steering and brakes. People use the windshield washer all the time while in motion.
For real fun, try having your heater core burst at night while at speed. Still manageable.
The "nuclear option would have been to disable the brakes. They didn't do that on the highway. They can only mess with the steering in reverse. Do you claim the jeep was reversing down the highway or would you like to retract that one?
They DID mess with the brakes at low speed NOT on a public road (picture looked like the edge of a parking lot).
And then the jury yawns loudly. By doing the test on the highway, everyone who sees the video can suddenly relate.
Meanwhile, putting it in neutral wasn't THAT dangerous. Cars suddenly quit running on the highway every day and most can't be fixed just by turning it off and then on again.
That's OK, even at 30 MPH, you won't have time to stop for anything the headlights might highlight for you. You won't even have time to get the brakes applied. If they can at least triple the range of detection to 36 meters, they might occasionally help you.
That was my first thought. Great, I can clearly see the thing I will inevitably run over rather than the thing far enough ahead that I can stop for it.
Re: Try Stack Overflow and --synclines
on
GCC 5.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
At least that's how it's supposed to be, but I have seen way too many broken ones that will build for the host but it's easier to replace the build system than it is to make it cross compile.
Re: Try Stack Overflow and --synclines
on
GCC 5.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
No. Make, a cross compiler, and assembler need to be able to run on your HOST platform. It's configure that's worthless if it won't run on the TARGET platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, these days, just getting dragged to court is a potentially life changing punitive process.
That MIGHT depend on the nature of the mechanism. If it is wired so that button press activates the solinoid to pull back and release is necessary for ity to move forward again, then one press can only ever fire one round.
The world is flat. This is a scientific principle that pre-dates the Greek.
When literally nobody knows the entirety of the law anymore (because there's too much of it for that) INCLUDING the legislature and SCOTUS (they have to look it up all the time), then ignorance of the law really IS an excuse even if it isn't accepted as one.
The elephant in the courtroom is that pretty much everyone has no choice but to do what seems right and hope for the best.
Do you realise that you veered off into your SJW rant?
SJW is a pejorative and calling his post a "rant" didn't help either.
What, you expect "family values" to somehow value the family?
Unless the consistent part of the process is that she is 'too old'.
THIS! Please mod up.
Don't worry, when you grow up you'll understand the nuances of what I wrote and it will all become clear to you.
It turns out TFA is wrong, Ford claims 120m, not 12.
But yes, maximum speed must be dictated by visibility.
Alas, it seems to be hit of miss. A good friend has gotten mostly useless 'help' from Apple. YMMV
People voluntarily wash their windshield while driving all the time. They also drive in the rain, even heavy rain.
People's cars stall on the highway all the time. At no point was he in the situation your link talks about. Even if he had been on the shoulder, that too happens all the time and rarely leads to a problem.
Turns out TFA and TFS are wrong. Press release says 120m.
Like I said, cars stall on the highway all the time. Then they are freewheeling AND they lose power steering and brakes. People use the windshield washer all the time while in motion.
For real fun, try having your heater core burst at night while at speed. Still manageable.
So, given the steering and brakes were NOT messed with, what part do you find so wildly dangerous?
That makes a lot more sense.
The "nuclear option would have been to disable the brakes. They didn't do that on the highway. They can only mess with the steering in reverse. Do you claim the jeep was reversing down the highway or would you like to retract that one?
They DID mess with the brakes at low speed NOT on a public road (picture looked like the edge of a parking lot).
That is what is known as a design defect.
And then the jury yawns loudly. By doing the test on the highway, everyone who sees the video can suddenly relate.
Meanwhile, putting it in neutral wasn't THAT dangerous. Cars suddenly quit running on the highway every day and most can't be fixed just by turning it off and then on again.
See what happens if you overstate your personal income by that much and then borrow money from the bank.
That's OK, even at 30 MPH, you won't have time to stop for anything the headlights might highlight for you. You won't even have time to get the brakes applied. If they can at least triple the range of detection to 36 meters, they might occasionally help you.
Yes. That means that even at 30 MPH (44 ft/sec), these headlights will only highlight things you will inevitably hit.
That was my first thought. Great, I can clearly see the thing I will inevitably run over rather than the thing far enough ahead that I can stop for it.
At least that's how it's supposed to be, but I have seen way too many broken ones that will build for the host but it's easier to replace the build system than it is to make it cross compile.
No. Make, a cross compiler, and assembler need to be able to run on your HOST platform. It's configure that's worthless if it won't run on the TARGET platform.
Agreed.