Jets also suck in debris from runways. Air intakes underneath the fuselage suck in a lot of debris from runways. Aside from damaging the turbine blades, the X-32 design looks like there is a lot of potential for damaging the surface of the engine casing, reducing the effectiveness of the LO surface. Then again, given that the engine face is clearly visible, the stealth capabilities are dubious in the first place.
As for the notion that the X-32 is better than the X-35 for STOVL operation, there doesn't appear to be much evidence from the flight test programmes. Half the X-32 had to be stripped off to get it to perform vertical lift operations. The lift to weight ratio for the Boeing entrant was sadly lacking.
The natural ability to perceive and understand; intelligence.
Keenness and quickness of perception or discernment; ingenuity. Often used in the plural: living by one's wits.
wits Sound mental faculties; sanity: scared out of my wits.
The ability to perceive and express in an ingeniously humorous manner the relationship between seemingly incongruous or disparate things.
One noted for this ability, especially one skilled in repartee.
A person of exceptional intelligence.
Idioms: at (one's) wits' end At the limit of one's mental resources; utterly at a loss. have/keep(one's) wits about
(one) To remain alert or calm, especially in a crisis.
[Middle English, from Old English. See weid- in Indo-European Roots.]
Synonyms: wit, 1humor, repartee, sarcasm, irony
These nouns denote forms of expression that elicit amusement or laughter. Wit implies intellectual keenness and the ability to perceive and express in a diverting way analogies between
dissimilar things: Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words (Dorothy Parker).
Humor suggests the faculty of recognizing what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd: Man's sense of humor seems to be in inverse proportion to the gravity of his profession
(Mary Roberts Rinehart).
Repartee implies a facility for answering swiftly and cleverly: framing comments... that would be sure to sting and yet leave no opening for repartee (H.G. Wells).
Sarcasm is a form of caustic wit intended to wound or ridicule another: [His] tone seemed as if meant to be kind and soothing, but yet had a bitterness of sarcasm in it (Nathaniel
Hawthorne).
Irony is a form of expression in which an intended meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words used: A drayman in a passion [a rage] calls out, You are a pretty
fellow, without suspecting that he is uttering irony (Thomas Macaulay).
See also synonyms at mind
Well we can look at the increasing crime rates in the cities of the UK for what happens when there is gun control.
But very little of the crime in the UK ends up with people dying. We also don't have anyone running around London at the moment taking pot shots at people just for the hell of it.
The US has no authority to apply freedoms it outlines to people that are not their citizens
That's a frightening statement. What exactly prevents the US administration from treating other human beings with dignity. Does the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights count for nothing in the Land of the Free?
US visa law is no different. I was in the US - I had to leave the country to get new visa.
If there is any difference, it is probably that the Russians aren't yet as good at extracting money from foreigners.Enter the US, apply for an I-94 extension ($150), wait a few weeks, get granted an extension that expires in a few weeks, apply for a new extension ($150), wait a few weeks,....
No chance! If Dmitry gets convicted for this absurd law in absentia, there is absolutely no way the Russian government would hand him over (and he would be crazy to come voluntarily, even if he could get a visa after being convicted). There are no extradition treaties in place for copyright infringement (as if that really mattered in the grand scheme of international politics!) and the Russian state is not quite as weak and willing as many Americans would like to believe. The Russians and French are not giving Bush a very easy time over the Iraqi UN resolution that he wants. If he gets it, America will have to give *major* concessions to Russia - I have no doubt at all that the current administration is well aware of this. In fact, that could explain the visa refusal. By delaying the trial, the US government can try and get UN backing for their war before they start trying to defend themselves against Russian criticisms of their legal system.
They don't really look that bad. Comments about the extravagence of people who can afford a six month trip are just silly. When you consider that US embassies receive thousnads of applications from people who barely speak English, have never seen the format of a US address, etc. these applications look fairly reasonable. As for the comments about the convenience of repeat applications containing the "correct" answers to questions, this really is to be expected. When a visa is refused, the embassy generally tells you why they refused it in order to help you to determine what is necessary for you to appeal (and whether an appeal would have any chance of succeeding). Consequently, it would take rather a great degree of stupidity to make the same mistakes on two consecutive applications. I am quite sure that embassy officials see hundreds of applications like these every day. If they refused them all, the US would never get any visitors from overseas.
But he hasn't been convicted yet. Of course, I don't know that he hasn't been convicted of any speeding offences in Russia, but given the fact he recently did obtain a visa (else he wouldn't have this trouble to deal with) I think it is unlikely.
Really, this just demonstrates the inconsistancy of the US visa review process. He is being refused a visa by the same embassy which recently granted him one!
Visas are not valid indefinitely (and the applicant has no way of knowing how long the visa will be granted for - I applied for a visa to work on a US government contract, it was granted for a year; my girlfriend applied to come and visit me, hers was granted for ten years). Applying too early could result in the visa expiring before the trial - and it costs money every time you apply.
As for the implication that he could have stayed in the US, how would you like a foreign government to prosecute you. Would you have no desire to see your family and friends during a traumatic time like that. Remember, Dmitry has not yet been convicted of anything. Why should he have any less right to see his family than an American who did the same thing. In fact, given the fact that he didn't actually commit any criminal acts while in the US, I find the idea that he should be responsible for hanging around while the prosecution gets itself sorted out rather sick.
As if anyone with bad intentions would answer truthfully.
I am not entirely certain about this, but the only rational explanation I can conceive for these questions is that it is easier for the US to deport someone who lies on their visa application. So, if they later find out that you are a terrorist/smuggler/spy/communist/liberal/Canadian/ etc., immigration can just kick you out for lying on the visa form rather than having to haul you before a court.
Alternatively, perhaps the INS is just a bit naive.
Fortunately for Skyralov, he can't effectively be prosecuted unless he returns to the US. Given the hospitality he received last he visited, it would be perfectly understandable if he desired never to see the place again.
I suspect he would rather clear his name, however.
That would rather impede his defence somewhat, however. The constitution guarantees a fair trial, not just any old trial.
Then again, as he is not a US citizen, there are some who would question whether he actually has any rights at all under the US constitution.(A certain politician certainly seems to think not).
You have to wonder what was put on the visa application.
Well, one of the questions on a visa application form asks if you have ever been engaged in terrorist activities. Given the rather broad definition of terrorism just at the moment... one has to wonder if contravention of the DCMA would count.
Answering yes to questions of that sort (there are others: are you a smuggler, are you a spy, etc.) generally leads to a pretty swift refusal.
The most ironic thing about that song is the fact that there are very few examples of actual irony in it. Most of the complaints are things that are generally considered to be just plain old bad luck.
11 As soon as we can remove our current dependency on libgdiff, we plan to
12 switch to the Common Public License (CPL) to ensure that users of
13 OpenCM receive adequate patent rights to use the tool. The absence of
14 such protection is a serious flaw in GPL. CPL is an open source
15 license.
Can anyone explain what this is all about? Talk of patents doesn't usually make think of free software.
As I mentioned here, it might work in the States, but not in the rest of the world. The US system grants patents to those who can prove that they invented something first. Most of the rest of the world doesn't work that way. In most countries, patents are awarded to the first person to file for a patent.
IANAPL BUT, I believe that in almost every country but the US, it is not the person who can prove that they invented something that gets the patent, but rather the person who files for a patent first. This makes sense really, the patent is a monopoly in exchange for disclosing the invention - if you aren't intending to disclose it, why should you be granted a monopoly?
Anyway, the point is, mailing the evidence to yourself is only effective if the next person to discover the algorithm decides to file with USPTO rather than, say, the EPO.
If the idea is good enough, it shouldn't be hard to find someone capable of funding the battle in exchange for a cut of the winnings - many lawyers are happy to do this if the case is strong enough. Obviously, the important thing here is to wait until someone has made a lot of money with the product and *then* sue.
Slashdot Mirror
Jets also suck in debris from runways. Air intakes underneath the fuselage suck in a lot of debris from runways. Aside from damaging the turbine blades, the X-32 design looks like there is a lot of potential for damaging the surface of the engine casing, reducing the effectiveness of the LO surface. Then again, given that the engine face is clearly visible, the stealth capabilities are dubious in the first place.
As for the notion that the X-32 is better than the X-35 for STOVL operation, there doesn't appear to be much evidence from the flight test programmes. Half the X-32 had to be stripped off to get it to perform vertical lift operations. The lift to weight ratio for the Boeing entrant was sadly lacking.
I don't know about you, but if someone fires a missile at me, I won't sue them for copyright violation.
n.
Idioms:
at (one's) wits' end At the limit of one's mental resources; utterly at a loss. have
[Middle English, from Old English. See weid- in Indo-European Roots.]
So what is your point exactly?
One of the original proposals for Concorde had bat wings. Take a look at the ARMSTRONG-WHITWORTH M-WING proposal.
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Treaty: A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade.
They must have changed designers when they sketched out their JSF proposal. Did you ever see the Sailor Inhaler?
Of course, it could just be that they want everyone to think that.
But very little of the crime in the UK ends up with people dying. We also don't have anyone running around London at the moment taking pot shots at people just for the hell of it.
That's a frightening statement. What exactly prevents the US administration from treating other human beings with dignity. Does the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights count for nothing in the Land of the Free?
If there is any difference, it is probably that the Russians aren't yet as good at extracting money from foreigners.Enter the US, apply for an I-94 extension ($150), wait a few weeks, get granted an extension that expires in a few weeks, apply for a new extension ($150), wait a few weeks, ....
No chance! If Dmitry gets convicted for this absurd law in absentia, there is absolutely no way the Russian government would hand him over (and he would be crazy to come voluntarily, even if he could get a visa after being convicted). There are no extradition treaties in place for copyright infringement (as if that really mattered in the grand scheme of international politics!) and the Russian state is not quite as weak and willing as many Americans would like to believe. The Russians and French are not giving Bush a very easy time over the Iraqi UN resolution that he wants. If he gets it, America will have to give *major* concessions to Russia - I have no doubt at all that the current administration is well aware of this. In fact, that could explain the visa refusal. By delaying the trial, the US government can try and get UN backing for their war before they start trying to defend themselves against Russian criticisms of their legal system.
They don't really look that bad. Comments about the extravagence of people who can afford a six month trip are just silly. When you consider that US embassies receive thousnads of applications from people who barely speak English, have never seen the format of a US address, etc. these applications look fairly reasonable. As for the comments about the convenience of repeat applications containing the "correct" answers to questions, this really is to be expected. When a visa is refused, the embassy generally tells you why they refused it in order to help you to determine what is necessary for you to appeal (and whether an appeal would have any chance of succeeding). Consequently, it would take rather a great degree of stupidity to make the same mistakes on two consecutive applications. I am quite sure that embassy officials see hundreds of applications like these every day. If they refused them all, the US would never get any visitors from overseas.
Really, this just demonstrates the inconsistancy of the US visa review process. He is being refused a visa by the same embassy which recently granted him one!
As for the implication that he could have stayed in the US, how would you like a foreign government to prosecute you. Would you have no desire to see your family and friends during a traumatic time like that. Remember, Dmitry has not yet been convicted of anything. Why should he have any less right to see his family than an American who did the same thing. In fact, given the fact that he didn't actually commit any criminal acts while in the US, I find the idea that he should be responsible for hanging around while the prosecution gets itself sorted out rather sick.
He had every right to go home.
I am not entirely certain about this, but the only rational explanation I can conceive for these questions is that it is easier for the US to deport someone who lies on their visa application. So, if they later find out that you are a terrorist/smuggler/spy/communist/liberal/Canadian/ etc., immigration can just kick you out for lying on the visa form rather than having to haul you before a court.
Alternatively, perhaps the INS is just a bit naive.
I suspect he would rather clear his name, however.
Then again, as he is not a US citizen, there are some who would question whether he actually has any rights at all under the US constitution.(A certain politician certainly seems to think not).
Well, one of the questions on a visa application form asks if you have ever been engaged in terrorist activities. Given the rather broad definition of terrorism just at the moment ... one has to wonder if contravention of the DCMA would count.
Answering yes to questions of that sort (there are others: are you a smuggler, are you a spy, etc.) generally leads to a pretty swift refusal.
True irony is perhaps the highest form of humour.
Can anyone explain what this is all about? Talk of patents doesn't usually make think of free software.
absolutey ;-)
As I mentioned here, it might work in the States, but not in the rest of the world. The US system grants patents to those who can prove that they invented something first. Most of the rest of the world doesn't work that way. In most countries, patents are awarded to the first person to file for a patent.
Anyway, the point is, mailing the evidence to yourself is only effective if the next person to discover the algorithm decides to file with USPTO rather than, say, the EPO.
If the idea is good enough, it shouldn't be hard to find someone capable of funding the battle in exchange for a cut of the winnings - many lawyers are happy to do this if the case is strong enough. Obviously, the important thing here is to wait until someone has made a lot of money with the product and *then* sue.
like fireworks?