and not be replaced because management didn't understand their value to the work we did, and we ended up paying for it silently by years of lost productivity and a simple inability to get things done because the people who left did their jobs competently and without drama, and were invisible. Your situation may be different or it may be the same. It's really a personal decision for you if you're emotionally invested in your company's product and don't want to see it tank because they couldn't figure out how the sausage was made in time. When you're ready to go, tell them straight out. But be prepared for a disappointment.
That's a pretty wide range there. Everything from letting buggy-whips go the way of the buggy to people who think they know best deciding who and what is allowed to survive. Best to pin yourself down to a position lest you be accused of not having an intellectual grounding. Here you are cheering on the demise of fossil fuels in one post, then saying natural gas is a superior technology (which I happen to agree with, but see no reason to have government pick it as the winner), but all in a story about France banning natural gas extraction right along with everything else.
I wouldn't expect bounce or jiggle in background objects, and I wouldn't expect bounce or jiggle in a fixed point being tracked on the ground open-loop, but I would expect bounce on something that's being tracked angles-only and is changing shape. The other thing that does it for me is its symmetry and that when it rotates, it rolls over where I assume the optical axis is. All of that just makes me think it's lens flare.
If they were flying right next to each other and looking in the same direction, it could be the same lens flare. Need more information than what was in the NYT article.
Could be. But that would be awfully steady tracking on a blob that keeps changing shape. Can't say yes or no definitively without knowing more, but I've seen stuff that looks like this that was cured by better baffling of the optics.
I did read it. I learned from it that the radar on that warship was registering a large number of false alarms that the radar on the F-18 was not, possibly caused by the operator on the ship not knowing what he was doing and the pilots knowing what they were doing, and nowhere did the Navy pilot actually say he saw the thing with his eyes. All we're presented with is a video that for the life of me looks like lens flare, but could be any one of a half-dozen other things that aren't possible to rule in or out without knowing the exact time of day, location, and orientation of the camera field of view and knowing what sort of image processing/dithering/gain frame/dark frame was or was not being applied to generate the data that was being presented in the video.
And it looks like any number of artifacts I've seen in all sorts of expensive "sensors." That fact that it stayed on in the center and rotated around the center makes me think it's a light leak or lens flare in the optics. Video on NYT didn't say what kind of sensor it's from, but my guess would be short-wave or midwave IR (~1-1.7um or 2-4um), so it could be a reflection of sunlight or a hotspot in the electronics immediately adjacent to the camera optics.
In theory yes. In practice they funnelled $22m of taxpayer funds to one of Harry Reid's wealthy friends for a pet project of his and are trying to pass off a camera artifact or lens flare from an F-18 as justification for it.
Was it the international space station? That's about the only thing you can see in daylight hours. At twilight you can see Mercury and Venus. At night you can see most large satellites in low orbit. They move about the width of your thumb in one second, give or take. It's easier to judge at night because you can reference to the stars.
Save your flat-Earth conspiracy for another site, comrade. Everyone knows the world ended on December 21, 2012. The flat Earth we think we see if just a hologram to cover up the fact that the real flat Earth was destroyed by a stampede of cosmic elephants incited by one of them turtles a couple dozen levels down.
Then maybe, just maybe, all the global warming nutters, socialists, gun grabbers, new age tree huggers, and most of everyone past the first few letters of LGBTQ?%# are doing society an enormous disservice by continually and obnoxiously screaming about how Science Is On Their Side. I can't count how many times some leftie has told me "the science backs me up on this" and whenever I bothered to look into said "science" it was, at best, an opinion poll and abuse of statistics, but usually just a bunch of drivel in a vanity journal.
The "Stanford Study Predicts No More Cars In Ten Years" sort of thing goes very high on that list. People used to claim God was on their side when they put their hands in your pockets. Now they claim Science is on their side. Fewer people believe in God than they used to after society at large got wise to those sorts of shenanigans. The atheists are happy, the self-described Skeptics and "Brights" are thrilled. But the hucksters (some of the aforementioned Skeptics included) have moved on to science as the new God, but there ain't no free lunch. Just like overreaching by religious hucksters backfired in that fewer people believe in God, or in absolute morality as derived from god, just like overreaching socialists gave Britain Brexit, is it any wonder more people are skeptical about capital-S Science?
some jail time for the environutters that predicated all of the anti-car and anti-jobs regulations on this little white lie being true.
How many times in the last decade have Democrats (especially Dems, though not exclusively) been telling us that "all the carmakers support 50MPG CAFE" as "proof" that their environmental regulations weren't bonkers.
Slashdot Mirror
and not be replaced because management didn't understand their value to the work we did, and we ended up paying for it silently by years of lost productivity and a simple inability to get things done because the people who left did their jobs competently and without drama, and were invisible. Your situation may be different or it may be the same. It's really a personal decision for you if you're emotionally invested in your company's product and don't want to see it tank because they couldn't figure out how the sausage was made in time. When you're ready to go, tell them straight out. But be prepared for a disappointment.
Great. Another layer of DRM. Printer doesn't work unless you're plugged into the internet and paying for 'up-to-date' certificates from the vendor.
And sometimes you don't care. Like when you're on an internal network and don't want to confuse your users with a red warning signal.
That's a pretty wide range there. Everything from letting buggy-whips go the way of the buggy to people who think they know best deciding who and what is allowed to survive. Best to pin yourself down to a position lest you be accused of not having an intellectual grounding. Here you are cheering on the demise of fossil fuels in one post, then saying natural gas is a superior technology (which I happen to agree with, but see no reason to have government pick it as the winner), but all in a story about France banning natural gas extraction right along with everything else.
Ah. And who does the consigning? The philosopher-kings?
petrochemicals from Russia buy YOU!
What is a "jerb" and why would anyone want one. Sounds like a parasite if some kind.
Make it all out of steel!
And "sustainable" for overly-expensive and poor quality.
Evidence-based entitlements for diverse trans-gendered fetuses are vulnerable to science-based bans.
I wouldn't expect bounce or jiggle in background objects, and I wouldn't expect bounce or jiggle in a fixed point being tracked on the ground open-loop, but I would expect bounce on something that's being tracked angles-only and is changing shape. The other thing that does it for me is its symmetry and that when it rotates, it rolls over where I assume the optical axis is. All of that just makes me think it's lens flare.
If they were flying right next to each other and looking in the same direction, it could be the same lens flare. Need more information than what was in the NYT article.
Could be. But that would be awfully steady tracking on a blob that keeps changing shape. Can't say yes or no definitively without knowing more, but I've seen stuff that looks like this that was cured by better baffling of the optics.
I did read it. I learned from it that the radar on that warship was registering a large number of false alarms that the radar on the F-18 was not, possibly caused by the operator on the ship not knowing what he was doing and the pilots knowing what they were doing, and nowhere did the Navy pilot actually say he saw the thing with his eyes. All we're presented with is a video that for the life of me looks like lens flare, but could be any one of a half-dozen other things that aren't possible to rule in or out without knowing the exact time of day, location, and orientation of the camera field of view and knowing what sort of image processing/dithering/gain frame/dark frame was or was not being applied to generate the data that was being presented in the video.
And it looks like any number of artifacts I've seen in all sorts of expensive "sensors." That fact that it stayed on in the center and rotated around the center makes me think it's a light leak or lens flare in the optics. Video on NYT didn't say what kind of sensor it's from, but my guess would be short-wave or midwave IR (~1-1.7um or 2-4um), so it could be a reflection of sunlight or a hotspot in the electronics immediately adjacent to the camera optics.
You can measure it as follows: accelerate up to relativistic speed and ask yourself if murder, theft, and lying are still wrong.
Also the plural of 'aircraft' is 'aircraft.' Troll better next time.
In theory yes. In practice they funnelled $22m of taxpayer funds to one of Harry Reid's wealthy friends for a pet project of his and are trying to pass off a camera artifact or lens flare from an F-18 as justification for it.
Was it the international space station? That's about the only thing you can see in daylight hours. At twilight you can see Mercury and Venus. At night you can see most large satellites in low orbit. They move about the width of your thumb in one second, give or take. It's easier to judge at night because you can reference to the stars.
I saw a big bright one. It keeps coming back every morning and hides every night. For about a week every month, it has a crescent-shaped partner.
It sounds awesome, but it looks like a camera artifact.
The fact that government policies enable sloth doesn't help things. Round 'em all up and put 'em to work if they won't do it themselves.
Save your flat-Earth conspiracy for another site, comrade. Everyone knows the world ended on December 21, 2012. The flat Earth we think we see if just a hologram to cover up the fact that the real flat Earth was destroyed by a stampede of cosmic elephants incited by one of them turtles a couple dozen levels down.
Then maybe, just maybe, all the global warming nutters, socialists, gun grabbers, new age tree huggers, and most of everyone past the first few letters of LGBTQ?%# are doing society an enormous disservice by continually and obnoxiously screaming about how Science Is On Their Side. I can't count how many times some leftie has told me "the science backs me up on this" and whenever I bothered to look into said "science" it was, at best, an opinion poll and abuse of statistics, but usually just a bunch of drivel in a vanity journal.
The "Stanford Study Predicts No More Cars In Ten Years" sort of thing goes very high on that list. People used to claim God was on their side when they put their hands in your pockets. Now they claim Science is on their side. Fewer people believe in God than they used to after society at large got wise to those sorts of shenanigans. The atheists are happy, the self-described Skeptics and "Brights" are thrilled. But the hucksters (some of the aforementioned Skeptics included) have moved on to science as the new God, but there ain't no free lunch. Just like overreaching by religious hucksters backfired in that fewer people believe in God, or in absolute morality as derived from god, just like overreaching socialists gave Britain Brexit, is it any wonder more people are skeptical about capital-S Science?
some jail time for the environutters that predicated all of the anti-car and anti-jobs regulations on this little white lie being true.
How many times in the last decade have Democrats (especially Dems, though not exclusively) been telling us that "all the carmakers support 50MPG CAFE" as "proof" that their environmental regulations weren't bonkers.