Gah. Ignore previous reply, for some reason I forget that 1:10 is linear scale, not area. The 1:10 model is, of course, *one thousand* times smaller in volume and weight, assuming perfect scaling. On the other hand, square cube means that the possible payload would be greater than that fraction. I'd say you'd probably still be able to lift at least 1/100 of the full-size's payload. Once again, a few pounds, at least.
Wait a minute. A 1:1 scale plane hauls your ass and literally tons of fuel and armament, but something 10x smaller can only carry a couple ounces?! Have you ever dealt with 1:10 scale models?
A 1:10 scale model is about 32 times smaller in volume and weight (square-cube law). Still more than enough to carry a few pounds, though.
Umm, exactly how much of a payload do you really think a RC aircraft has?
A lot, if you're flying a big one. R/C aircraft have been getting bigger for years. The biggest ones nowadays are like 1/3 and 1/2 scale, and can carry dozens of pounds. Dozens of pounds of C4 is quite enough to ruin your day, I assure you.
1) Vendors sometimes cut corners on standards. And sometimes standards that are supposed to guarantee interoperability between all conforming equipment turn out to have corner cases where two pieces of equipment implementing the standard in different (but both conforming) ways can't work together. All one vendor tends to guarantee interoperatilibty
2) It also eliminates finger-pointing. It's all their equipment, so no matter what's broken, it's their job to fix it.
It's very simple. State is something you have to understand while looking at the code under consideration but isn't *defined* in the code under consideration. That means you have to analyze and understand all the state before you can work properly with code, and that can be hard to do, and hard to know that you have in fact gotten it all.
Where could you have this discussion and should you even be talking out loud? Wouldn't you need to be in a building somewhere that has sound insulation, or some other mechanism to keep your voice from being picked up from some other microphone than the one on your super secret smart phone?
No, of course not. But you can't try to get in contact with the other stockholders outside the annual meeting, say, to ask them to vote their proxies a certain way. Nor can you try to organize a list of small shareholders to all attend the meeting rather than just send in their proxies.
I always figured that at least large insitutional investors were swaying the elections.
Well, they can if they want to make the effort. You can do a lot more if you actually go to the stockholders' meeting rather than just sending in the proxy.
Interesting considering that board members are elected BY stockholders, and are supposed to represent their interests. Let them vote for the craziest folks they dare, as long as they vote for them.
Note that the only people on the proxy ballot are the ones provided by the board, who, amazingly enough, generally only provide you with one candidate to vote for in each position. Write-ins are generally not permitted, although you *can* vote *against* the board-provided candidate. Note also that you are not allowed to know or organize the other stockholders.
when are we going to "fix" the email system to prevent this? It's the same system that was designed when there were 1,000 computers on ARPANET.
No, it's not, and that's a big part of the problem. You used to only be able to send *text* though email. I can still remember when the idea of "e-mail viruses" was ludricrous--what, were you going to send them source code they'd have to compile and run themselves? Yes, there was uuencode, but that was about as cumbersome as sending source code and it was rarely used in email anyways. But no, people had to have their wiz-bang toys that required one-click running of code that you didn't really know the source of--and here we are.
Not a fear without foundation, I grant you. But looking like you're trying to hide the data is much, much worse than anything they could do *with* the data.
Slashdot Mirror
Gah. Ignore previous reply, for some reason I forget that 1:10 is linear scale, not area. The 1:10 model is, of course, *one thousand* times smaller in volume and weight, assuming perfect scaling. On the other hand, square cube means that the possible payload would be greater than that fraction. I'd say you'd probably still be able to lift at least 1/100 of the full-size's payload. Once again, a few pounds, at least.
A 1:10 scale model is about 32 times smaller in volume and weight (square-cube law). Still more than enough to carry a few pounds, though.
A lot, if you're flying a big one. R/C aircraft have been getting bigger for years. The biggest ones nowadays are like 1/3 and 1/2 scale, and can carry dozens of pounds. Dozens of pounds of C4 is quite enough to ruin your day, I assure you.
1) Vendors sometimes cut corners on standards. And sometimes standards that are supposed to guarantee interoperability between all conforming equipment turn out to have corner cases where two pieces of equipment implementing the standard in different (but both conforming) ways can't work together. All one vendor tends to guarantee interoperatilibty
2) It also eliminates finger-pointing. It's all their equipment, so no matter what's broken, it's their job to fix it.
It's very simple. State is something you have to understand while looking at the code under consideration but isn't *defined* in the code under consideration. That means you have to analyze and understand all the state before you can work properly with code, and that can be hard to do, and hard to know that you have in fact gotten it all.
And they sell thousands of times more minivans than Maseratis. Selling minivans isn't a bad business to be in at all.
That's what the Cone of Silence is for!
Excuse me, I should have said "forty-eight years".
No. It's been fifty-eight years. Assuming you count from when it first started serializaion in Analog.
I suspect it has more to do with Sprint getting the iPhone 5.
Well, if that doesn't qualify, surely this does.
I guess they want to draw the "animal torture fetish" crowd.
Well, according to him, I can't be...
No, of course not. But you can't try to get in contact with the other stockholders outside the annual meeting, say, to ask them to vote their proxies a certain way. Nor can you try to organize a list of small shareholders to all attend the meeting rather than just send in their proxies.
Well, they can if they want to make the effort. You can do a lot more if you actually go to the stockholders' meeting rather than just sending in the proxy.
Note that the only people on the proxy ballot are the ones provided by the board, who, amazingly enough, generally only provide you with one candidate to vote for in each position. Write-ins are generally not permitted, although you *can* vote *against* the board-provided candidate. Note also that you are not allowed to know or organize the other stockholders.
No, it's not, and that's a big part of the problem. You used to only be able to send *text* though email. I can still remember when the idea of "e-mail viruses" was ludricrous--what, were you going to send them source code they'd have to compile and run themselves? Yes, there was uuencode, but that was about as cumbersome as sending source code and it was rarely used in email anyways. But no, people had to have their wiz-bang toys that required one-click running of code that you didn't really know the source of--and here we are.
If your experience with vehicle crashes is limited to the movies, you should know that explosions are actually much rarer in real life.
After all, they have a girl friend.
...did we invent?
Can I live by snu-snu? 'Cause that's how I've always wanted to die.
Not a fear without foundation, I grant you. But looking like you're trying to hide the data is much, much worse than anything they could do *with* the data.
They should revoke his Imperial Warrant!
Even better than Norwegian Blues?
But then you have to have some sort of custom sort to get it to sort the months correctly.