I think it almost certainly got garbled by the media.
If I remember correctly one procedure is that manure is used to add carbon to the blade to form steel rather than to actually heat the sword up: you put the blade in a air-tight box with a handful of manure and then heat the whole lot up to high temperature, and when you open the box after some time, the manure is apparently gone, but the carbon from it has soaked into the blade.
An SR71 got diverted once because of this. The SR71 was flying somewhat faster, but Concorde's passengers were munching canapés and drinking Champagne, and her pilots were only a little less comfortable;-)
Sadly, both are now grounded.
There's still a few English Electric Lightnings flying in South Africa, they can do 60k, and they're demilitarised.
No, the comments above would explain that we're trying to do, e.g. find a needle to sew with, and the comments around the data structure definition would explain that we use a hashtable to speed up searching for... The point *isn't* simply to do
// add 4 to y x = y + 4;
it's more like
// we need to calculate the x coordinate, it's equal to y to be on diagonal, but add 4 due to border width x = y+4;
So you explain *what* you're doing in HIGH LEVEL terms, and set CONTEXT. And you don't comment each line, you comment each group of lines that do one thing.
And I also disagree with your 'despise' thing. It's very, very rare that code is over commented, and in most cases failing to correct comments helps create bugs, because it shows you weren't able to understand the code well enough to explain it to others, chances are there's a bug there goes way up. I also find that after I've written code, then's a good time to read it over and comment it. I find lots of bugs that way, and the code ends up much better. Not doing that wastes time in the long run because you'll find the bugs the hard way.
My comments are stuff like:// look for needle in a haystack for (a=stuff) {// it's got to be a needle if it's made of iron (everything else is straw!)
if (a.material ==IRON)
{//yay!
return a;
} }
In other words you document the intent of every paragraph of code, and a high level explanation of how it does it
As the Anonymous above you pointed out, the ISP just needs to agree budgets with the customer, and drop anything outside the agreed budgets down to best effort; and to agree with their suppliers not to *ever* drop prioritised traffic. Networks *can* be designed to not drop priority traffic.
If they need high bandwidth, high priority video conferencing, then presumably that needs high priority traffic, and the customer pays for the option that allows that.
The point is though that the customer ISN'T paying to connect with any particular service, protocol or server, he's paying for priority traffic, and the ISP promises not to drop his traffic for any reason.
To *some* extent this already happens. Some ISPs provide an explicitly contended service, they basically guarantee that 1/N of your maximum bandwidth will get through, and they use deep packet inspection to decide which services need high priority to work.
Yes, I think that's right, there's about the same amount of tyre in contact with the road, but the inside wall is going to be significantly stiffer because it's shorter, and hence you get less wall distortion, which will absorb less rolling energy.
Show me virtually any large C program and I'll show you one that can crash, hard, due to pointer errors or similar.
The choices the language designers made, in many cases were baroque and atrocious, and the default behaviours if you make trivial mistakes or omissions will usually destroy something, often subtly, and often cause a crash a long way away from where the error was. This can make debugging 'entertaining' to say the least.
And C++ is if anything worse.
Java is a lot more robust, but annoyingly verbose, but even that has its problems.
Really, there's no good industrial-strength robust languages in common use.
Still, dealing with this mess keeps SW engineers employed, so it's not all bad.
"Larry Sanger turned out to be a user, a liar, and now he's accusing it of hosting childporn."
Well... Wikipedia is a portmanteau made up of 'wiki' which means 'quick' and pedia which comes from encyclopedia which literally is the greek for children. So it literally means "Quick! Children!!!" a phrase guaranteed to warm the cockles of any pedobears heart.
It's slightly worse than that, if the blades get covered in glass much at all, they need to be replaced. The problem is that the glass blocks up the cooling channels and they can overheat. Once they've overheated they will tend to creep and fail later.
The Wikipedia is trying to fairly reflect the reliable sources multiple positions so including 'spouting off' is not necessarily vandalism, if the neutral point of view of the reliable sources is that there is some hostility to the tea party.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not actually a jet engine, it's a gas turbine. The car would be pushed along by the wheels not jet propulsion.
Gas turbines don't have high speed exhaust, so it's not going to be very noisy.
No, no they don't.
They "work" for a short while, then they explode.
"Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others."
One of the articles on this said that it mostly was just ordinary ore, but he tossed in some bonafide meteorite iron as well.
Oh no. I'm saying that the sword can easily fuck your shit up, too.
I think it almost certainly got garbled by the media.
If I remember correctly one procedure is that manure is used to add carbon to the blade to form steel rather than to actually heat the sword up: you put the blade in a air-tight box with a handful of manure and then heat the whole lot up to high temperature, and when you open the box after some time, the manure is apparently gone, but the carbon from it has soaked into the blade.
Concorde could reach 60k.
An SR71 got diverted once because of this. The SR71 was flying somewhat faster, but Concorde's passengers were munching canapés and drinking Champagne, and her pilots were only a little less comfortable ;-)
Sadly, both are now grounded.
There's still a few English Electric Lightnings flying in South Africa, they can do 60k, and they're demilitarised.
Do arrows fly?
Do stones?
I think most people agree that they do when they are thrown, even though they may have no propulsion and no aerodynamic lift.
How is this different to what spacecraft do?
It isn't. They are all examples of ballistic flight.
No, the comments above would explain that we're trying to do, e.g. find a needle to sew with, and the comments around the data structure definition would explain that we use a hashtable to speed up searching for ... The point *isn't* simply to do
// add 4 to y
// we need to calculate the x coordinate, it's equal to y to be on diagonal, but add 4 due to border width
x = y + 4;
it's more like
x = y+4;
So you explain *what* you're doing in HIGH LEVEL terms, and set CONTEXT. And you don't comment each line, you comment each group of lines that do one thing.
And I also disagree with your 'despise' thing. It's very, very rare that code is over commented, and in most cases failing to correct comments helps create bugs, because it shows you weren't able to understand the code well enough to explain it to others, chances are there's a bug there goes way up. I also find that after I've written code, then's a good time to read it over and comment it. I find lots of bugs that way, and the code ends up much better. Not doing that wastes time in the long run because you'll find the bugs the hard way.
My comments are stuff like: // look for needle in a haystack // it's got to be a needle if it's made of iron (everything else is straw!) //yay!
for (a=stuff)
{
if (a.material ==IRON)
{
return a;
}
}
In other words you document the intent of every paragraph of code, and a high level explanation of how it does it
At least up to jumbo sizes, but then they fall over in a heap on the floor.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/top/experiments/
As the Anonymous above you pointed out, the ISP just needs to agree budgets with the customer, and drop anything outside the agreed budgets down to best effort; and to agree with their suppliers not to *ever* drop prioritised traffic. Networks *can* be designed to not drop priority traffic.
If they need high bandwidth, high priority video conferencing, then presumably that needs high priority traffic, and the customer pays for the option that allows that.
The point is though that the customer ISN'T paying to connect with any particular service, protocol or server, he's paying for priority traffic, and the ISP promises not to drop his traffic for any reason.
To *some* extent this already happens. Some ISPs provide an explicitly contended service, they basically guarantee that 1/N of your maximum bandwidth will get through, and they use deep packet inspection to decide which services need high priority to work.
... and good riddance!
Well, I for one don't.
I want to give it an entire subnet, JUST IN CASE!
Yes, I think that's right, there's about the same amount of tyre in contact with the road, but the inside wall is going to be significantly stiffer because it's shorter, and hence you get less wall distortion, which will absorb less rolling energy.
Comics? Comics???
That's not canon.
As you say, 5000 mph.
Orbit: 17,500 mph
No contest.
It can go into orbit!
Thunderbird 2 is heavy and can only go supersonic!
There's no contest! What planet are you guys on?
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_machines
... or you look it up in Wikipedia.
Modern physics presumably includes chaos theory, and chaos theory applies just fine to non linearities in elastic bands.
They're harder because their brittle as fuck.
Show me virtually any large C program and I'll show you one that can crash, hard, due to pointer errors or similar.
The choices the language designers made, in many cases were baroque and atrocious, and the default behaviours if you make trivial mistakes or omissions will usually destroy something, often subtly, and often cause a crash a long way away from where the error was. This can make debugging 'entertaining' to say the least.
And C++ is if anything worse.
Java is a lot more robust, but annoyingly verbose, but even that has its problems.
Really, there's no good industrial-strength robust languages in common use.
Still, dealing with this mess keeps SW engineers employed, so it's not all bad.
People that change dates without adding any references are likely to be reverted. If you add a reference you won't be reverted.
"Larry Sanger turned out to be a user, a liar, and now he's accusing it of hosting childporn."
Well... Wikipedia is a portmanteau made up of 'wiki' which means 'quick' and pedia which comes from encyclopedia which literally is the greek for children. So it literally means "Quick! Children!!!" a phrase guaranteed to warm the cockles of any pedobears heart.
And, no, I'm not making this up.
So what *would* you expect to find in it? ;-)
I'm sure that's what he was thinking.
It's slightly worse than that, if the blades get covered in glass much at all, they need to be replaced. The problem is that the glass blocks up the cooling channels and they can overheat. Once they've overheated they will tend to creep and fail later.
The Wikipedia is trying to fairly reflect the reliable sources multiple positions so including 'spouting off' is not necessarily vandalism, if the neutral point of view of the reliable sources is that there is some hostility to the tea party.
The experiment would take too long- they reproduce too slowly; they reach puberty at 8-10 years old.
If the fox experiment is anything to go by it would take about 10 generations to do this.