Nope, it's a lot more complicated than that. Details vary between planes (from small military fighters to large passenger jets), but it's more like - pilot moves throttle lever, computer analyses whether or not throttling up/down engines at this point is within the permitted flight envelope and then, maybe, makes the change, along with changing other control surfaces to compensate if needed. At the same time it is continually adjusting control surfaces to keep the (sometimes intrinsically unstable) plane flying at all.
It doesn't "say" (or "think") "hummmm...this pilot doesn't know what he is doing" - but it might well make that decision and some systems alledgedly have on occaisions (eg. early Airbus A320 french airshow crash).
In a fly-by-wire aircraft (which is a lot of recent large passenger planes) you already bet it on the computational prowess of machine. It might be (is) several machines with different software comparing/contrasting/voting and monitoring each other, but machine it is - and if it decides the engines won't throttle up, then they won't, no matter how hard the pilot pushes the stick.
I was regarding it as getting permission (license) which they are required to grant - but the important thing is you have to get it, it isn't legal to just record your cover version.
To the other poster who says it's not needed if you just record it for your mates, and don't sell it: a) you may (IANAL) find that if you have enough mates, playing them your version may constitute public performance and b) most people don't make money sharing files - that doesn't make it legal (depending of how royalties are fixed, there may be a minimum which you have to pay regardless of whether you charge).
You aren't likely to get into trouble recording that cover version with your mates, but it isn't (unless you get a license of some sort) strictly legal - which makes it a very bad counter-analogy to file-sharing, because actually the same applies there (not strictly legal, unlikely - may be changing - to get you into trouble)...
Error in your logic: often you actually do need permission to legally record your cover version (see eg. example or just use google - rules may vary according to your jurisdiction).
I'd say flamebait is something written in a way likely to provoke flames rather than discussion.
Dissent is not the issue - more the way it is expressed.
In that, you are probably right that there is a big cultural difference between Americans and Europeans. What Americans view as healthy dissent, Europeans might view as insult - whilst Americans might view Europeans as not having any dissent (far, far from the truth) because we're too polite when expressing it...
Whilst I think solipsism is an interesting viewpoint I don't totally subscribe to it, hence I don't need the women to be in my back yard at this particular moment to regard them as existing - having been aquainted with
them and not having heard they've died is good enough for me.
I've met a lot of intelligent women, and a lot who've said that being intelligent seems to adversely affect their chances of getting men. I've also met quite a few men who, like the OP, bemoan the lack of intelligent women - and all in the same area.
It might have been the point he was trying to make, but what he actually said was "This isn't the geniuses' fault" - which seeing as we're talking about male geniuses kind of implies he's regarding it as _not_ the fault of men (and hence the fault of women).
Or he could be saying it's the fault of the other men for not raising women in the right way for the geniuses, who shouldn't have to be bothered with behaving towards women in a way which will encourage them to value intelligence over bra-size as an attractive attribute - which would be insultingly arrogant IMO.
I don't necessarily disagree with the "social problem" - I just think it damn well _is_ the geniuses/mens fault (at least in part) and that to deny that and dump all the blame on women as the OP did, is an insult.
erm... J.K. Rowlings only got married recently after Harry Potter was already a success (and everyone seemed to think that last book took way too long to write...).
It's flamebait because it's presenting a blatantly one sided view without even attempting to use any logic, let alone empathy, to see it from the other side. He's (arguably) targeting and insulting women.
There are plenty of intelligent educated professional women out there, I've established that as fact, but the gentleman in question can't seem to see them.
Most likely that's because he's one of the many men who can't see past the dumb pouting teenagers with large chests - and then wonders why women act dumb and spend on cosmetics silicone and peroxide. It's nothing to do with society raising women - it's women's response to what men indicate they prefer (we get what we ask for).
The other reason intelligent women often get ignored is men are scared of them - scared they might be too (ie. more) intelligent. Genius tends to come with significant ego (or it may be that the genius tends to become _recognised_ genius due to the ego) - which may make that reason even more likely in the male genius' choice of partner.
Me, I don't have a problem finding intelligent women, and I've often ended up with women that my male peers regard as "scary" (and I'm now married to one who was widely regarded as "very scary"). Me, I think scary is fun. No, I'm not a submissive either (far from it), I'm just not scared.
I still have the ego as well, just tempered by a pragmatic (& lazy) view of life - my ego would care not if my wife earns more than me if it means I get to stay home and play lego/trains/computer-games with kids while someone else pays the bills - ego be damned, that's pretty much my dream life!
STL and auto_ptrs is not a problem with STL (or auto_ptr really) - you are trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
auto_ptr is designed for "resource acquisition is initialization" - specifically not for copying around (it is not a "smart pointer" and is not supposed to be). stl containers are designed for copying things in and out of - the two things therefore do not go together _by design_.
if you want to put pointers in stl containers you can (and manage the lifetime yourself), if you want to put objects-managing-pointers in, you can - just use boost or one of the many other smart pointer implementations (as simple to use as auto_ptr, with a little (necessary) extra overhead).
# COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER DELUSIONS # # The BSD ancestor of this file had a standard Regents of the University of # California copyright with dates from 1980 to 1993. # # Some information has been merged in from a terminfo file SCO distributes. # It has an obnoxious boilerplate copyright which I'm ignoring because they # took so much of the content from the ancestral BSD versions of this file # and didn't attribute it, thereby violating the BSD Regents' copyright. # # Not that anyone should care. However many valid functions copyrights may # serve, putting one on a termcap/terminfo file with hundreds of anonymous # contributors makes about as much sense as copyrighting a wall-full of # graffiti -- it's legally dubious, ethically bogus, and patently ridiculous. # # This file deliberately has no copyright. It belongs to no one and everyone. # If you claim you own it, you will merely succeed in looking like a fool. # Use it as you like. Use it at your own risk. Copy and redistribute freely. # There are no guarantees anywhere. Svaha!
I'd still regard this as a plotter - I don't think the critical difference is how the ink (or whatever) gets onto the surface, but rather how lines are drawn.
As you say, a plotter draws lines, rather than dots (vector vs. raster) - and I think this is the critical difference. It doesn't matter that it is using a spray, it is still spraying lines (some of the images on the site are half-tone type images but they still look to be made up of lines). Of course you can draw a raster image with a vector plotter (and visa versa) if you need to.
Not sure they've invented anything. They've _built_ a vertical plotter.
Vertical plotters (even large scale & using spray paint) aren't new. I built one for a student engineering project, >15 years ago, and it wasn't new then (1m square, accurate to a couple of mm, spray paint, colour, etc.).
A couple of bits of string, a couple of motors and a print head is basically all any plotter is - the hard (expensive) bit is getting accurate "strings" and motors and frame.
They've thrown away the frame by requiring the components to be bolted to the target surface. Neat idea which saves on size/weight/expense, but I suspect it will limit accuaracy (wonder how they calibrate) and it limits the applications. Also I'm not sure there isn't prior art on that idea as well, in the robotics world.
Re:Does it have Heinlein's extreme right-wing view
on
Altered Carbon
·
· Score: 1
He probably fit more into libertarian - in particular I can't see his many & varied sexual themes (not so much starship troopers but all the lazarus long books) being "right wing" views.
yeah but under the GPL if you aren't allowed to distribute it without additional restrictions then you have to refrain from distributing it at all - see clause 7.
if the law says you have to keep it secret then you have to keep it secret - but in that case you can't distribute it in a limited way (to people the law says you can share the secret with) and remain in compliance with the GPL.
currently my wife loses around 17% total to tax. I earn more and lose around 30%. This year I took a pay cut - my net pay went down by 60% of the gross pay cut. That is what I understand by 40% marginal tax - what do you understand by it ?
I lose more both in percentage and actual than someone who earns less, and I know that rule carries on down to those who earn a lot less - I lived on benefits too at one time. That is what I understand by tax is less if you're poor - how do you get that it is much much more ?
Please explain it to me - put numbers down if need be. Seriously - I'm interested.
It's less if you're poor, a lot less if you're really poor.
It's 40% marginal (actually 41% since April when they slapped a 1% extra national insurance charge on whole of salary rather than capped like other NI charges) if you're on a reasonable salary.
It works that way up to a point - but if the government then chooses to share the code with someone else they aren't allowed to restrict that someone else from further sharing the code under the GPL.
If you commision GPL code from another party you could limit their rights by contract (you haven't distributed the code to them under the GPL, they have distributed it to you).
If you bring someone in as a contractor to do work for hire on the code then you may not have "distributed" the code outside of your organisation - so they might not have rights to it under GPL.
If you want another organisation to work on the code you have to distribute it to them under GPL, which would seem to mean that you can't place further restrictions (like NDA, classified etc.) on them that would prevent them distributing the code further.
GPL doesn't prevent you keeping things secret. It does prevent you doing a limited distribution and requiring the recipients to keep things secret. Unfortunately that is exactly what most military stuff needs - "secret" classification doesn't mean you can't tell anyone, it means you can't tell anyone who hasn't got the right clearance (which means they can't tell...).
Reply: thank you for calling tech support, your call is held in our queuing system and will be answered as soon as one of our operators is available, in the meantime here is some light music...
Airbuses glide too: link - landed at night as well.
There are no backups for multiple engine failure on any dual-engine airliner - one engine backs up the other, and that's it. Having a backup engine wouldn't help anyway if you've run out of fuel, which (believe it or not) is the main cause of all-engines-fail on big airliners (and it isn't considered near-impossible, there are many documented occurences).
Not sure what the weather is like there but that gap won't look so big in force 6+ and 20ft swell, or at night or in fog...
I guess they'll have to put lights and foghorns on each (like a mini lighthouse) which would add to the visual and noise pollution (I don't think I'd want to live within three miles of one lighthouse let alone dozens).
Marker bouys aren't exactly 100% effective - eg. when the tricolor sank in the channel they put several bouys, radar beacon, continuous costguard radio warnings and three warships (ok, they were french...) on station, and still the wreck got hit twice in only a few days.
As they put more of these offshore windmills up, sooner or later someone _will_ ram a ship into them - just a question of when and how many / how bad. I mean if you stick a massive oil rig miles from anywhere in the north sea (and light it up like a christmas tree) you'd think it would be pretty safe from collision ? - nope they get hit too.
Airport operators (here in UK) often end up having to compensate house owners within particular distances (noise levels) by installing double/triple glazing and sound insulation. A company I worked for (some years ago) ended up having to do exactly the same for houses close to wind turbines - they do cause noise pollution comparable to an airport.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it's a lot more complicated than that. Details vary between planes (from small military fighters to large passenger jets), but it's more like - pilot moves throttle lever, computer analyses whether or not throttling up/down engines at this point is within the permitted flight envelope and then, maybe, makes the change, along with changing other control surfaces to compensate if needed. At the same time it is continually adjusting control surfaces to keep the (sometimes intrinsically unstable) plane flying at all.
It doesn't "say" (or "think") "hummmm...this pilot doesn't know what he is doing" - but it might well make that decision and some systems alledgedly have on occaisions (eg. early Airbus A320 french airshow crash).
In a fly-by-wire aircraft (which is a lot of recent large passenger planes) you already bet it on the computational prowess of machine. It might be (is) several machines with different software comparing/contrasting/voting and monitoring each other, but machine it is - and if it decides the engines won't throttle up, then they won't, no matter how hard the pilot pushes the stick.
I was regarding it as getting permission (license) which they are required to grant - but the important thing is you have to get it, it isn't legal to just record your cover version.
To the other poster who says it's not needed if you just record it for your mates, and don't sell it: a) you may (IANAL) find that if you have enough mates, playing them your version may constitute public performance and b) most people don't make money sharing files - that doesn't make it legal (depending of how royalties are fixed, there may be a minimum which you have to pay regardless of whether you charge).
You aren't likely to get into trouble recording that cover version with your mates, but it isn't (unless you get a license of some sort) strictly legal - which makes it a very bad counter-analogy to file-sharing, because actually the same applies there (not strictly legal, unlikely - may be changing - to get you into trouble)...
Error in your logic: often you actually do need permission to legally record your cover version (see eg. example or just use google - rules may vary according to your jurisdiction).
I'd say flamebait is something written in a way likely to provoke flames rather than discussion.
Dissent is not the issue - more the way it is expressed.
In that, you are probably right that there is a big cultural difference between Americans and Europeans. What Americans view as healthy dissent, Europeans might view as insult - whilst Americans might view Europeans as not having any dissent (far, far from the truth) because we're too polite when expressing it...
Whilst I think solipsism is an interesting viewpoint I don't totally subscribe to it, hence I don't need the women to be in my back yard at this particular moment to regard them as existing - having been aquainted with
them and not having heard they've died is good enough for me.
I've met a lot of intelligent women, and a lot who've said that being intelligent seems to adversely affect their chances of getting men. I've also met quite a few men who, like the OP, bemoan the lack of intelligent women - and all in the same area.
It might have been the point he was trying to make, but what he actually said was "This isn't the geniuses' fault" - which seeing as we're talking about male geniuses kind of implies he's regarding it as _not_ the fault of men (and hence the fault of women).
Or he could be saying it's the fault of the other men for not raising women in the right way for the geniuses, who shouldn't have to be bothered with behaving towards women in a way which will encourage them to value intelligence over bra-size as an attractive attribute - which would be insultingly arrogant IMO.
I don't necessarily disagree with the "social problem" - I just think it damn well _is_ the geniuses/mens fault (at least in part) and that to deny that and dump all the blame on women as the OP did, is an insult.
erm... J.K. Rowlings only got married recently after Harry Potter was already a success (and everyone seemed to think that last book took way too long to write...).
When she wrote the first she was a single mother.
It's flamebait because it's presenting a blatantly one sided view without even attempting to use any logic, let alone empathy, to see it from the other side. He's (arguably) targeting and insulting women.
There are plenty of intelligent educated professional women out there, I've established that as fact, but the gentleman in question can't seem to see them.
Most likely that's because he's one of the many men who can't see past the dumb pouting teenagers with large chests - and then wonders why women act dumb and spend on cosmetics silicone and peroxide. It's nothing to do with society raising women - it's women's response to what men indicate they prefer (we get what we ask for).
The other reason intelligent women often get ignored is men are scared of them - scared they might be too (ie. more) intelligent. Genius tends to come with significant ego (or it may be that the genius tends to become _recognised_ genius due to the ego) - which may make that reason even more likely in the male genius' choice of partner.
Me, I don't have a problem finding intelligent women, and I've often ended up with women that my male peers regard as "scary" (and I'm now married to one who was widely regarded as "very scary"). Me, I think scary is fun. No, I'm not a submissive either (far from it), I'm just not scared.
I still have the ego as well, just tempered by a pragmatic (& lazy) view of life - my ego would care not if my wife earns more than me if it means I get to stay home and play lego/trains/computer-games with kids while someone else pays the bills - ego be damned, that's pretty much my dream life!
STL and auto_ptrs is not a problem with STL (or auto_ptr really) - you are trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
auto_ptr is designed for "resource acquisition is initialization" - specifically not for copying around (it is not a "smart pointer" and is not supposed to be). stl containers are designed for copying things in and out of - the two things therefore do not go together _by design_.
if you want to put pointers in stl containers you can (and manage the lifetime yourself), if you want to put objects-managing-pointers in, you can - just use boost or one of the many other smart pointer implementations (as simple to use as auto_ptr, with a little (necessary) extra overhead).
VC++ does partial template specialization now (I didn't think it did yet) ??
If that's true I need to upgrade - been cursing that particular missing bit for a long time...
I think this is what is being referred to:
# COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER DELUSIONS
#
# The BSD ancestor of this file had a standard Regents of the University of
# California copyright with dates from 1980 to 1993.
#
# Some information has been merged in from a terminfo file SCO distributes.
# It has an obnoxious boilerplate copyright which I'm ignoring because they
# took so much of the content from the ancestral BSD versions of this file
# and didn't attribute it, thereby violating the BSD Regents' copyright.
#
# Not that anyone should care. However many valid functions copyrights may
# serve, putting one on a termcap/terminfo file with hundreds of anonymous
# contributors makes about as much sense as copyrighting a wall-full of
# graffiti -- it's legally dubious, ethically bogus, and patently ridiculous.
#
# This file deliberately has no copyright. It belongs to no one and everyone.
# If you claim you own it, you will merely succeed in looking like a fool.
# Use it as you like. Use it at your own risk. Copy and redistribute freely.
# There are no guarantees anywhere. Svaha!
I'd still regard this as a plotter - I don't think the critical difference is how the ink (or whatever) gets onto the surface, but rather how lines are drawn.
As you say, a plotter draws lines, rather than dots (vector vs. raster) - and I think this is the critical difference. It doesn't matter that it is using a spray, it is still spraying lines (some of the images on the site are half-tone type images but they still look to be made up of lines). Of course you can draw a raster image with a vector plotter (and visa versa) if you need to.
Not sure they've invented anything. They've _built_ a vertical plotter.
Vertical plotters (even large scale & using spray paint) aren't new. I built one for a student engineering project, >15 years ago, and it wasn't new then (1m square, accurate to a couple of mm, spray paint, colour, etc.).
A couple of bits of string, a couple of motors and a print head is basically all any plotter is - the hard (expensive) bit is getting accurate "strings" and motors and frame.
They've thrown away the frame by requiring the components to be bolted to the target surface. Neat idea which saves on size/weight/expense, but I suspect it will limit accuaracy (wonder how they calibrate) and it limits the applications. Also I'm not sure there isn't prior art on that idea as well, in the robotics world.
He probably fit more into libertarian - in particular I can't see his many & varied sexual themes (not so much starship troopers but all the lazarus long books) being "right wing" views.
nope - an NDA only infects if you sign it. this is more like Unix-source-according-to-SCO.
yeah but under the GPL if you aren't allowed to distribute it without additional restrictions then you have to refrain from distributing it at all - see clause 7.
if the law says you have to keep it secret then you have to keep it secret - but in that case you can't distribute it in a limited way (to people the law says you can share the secret with) and remain in compliance with the GPL.
Looking at some payslips:
currently my wife loses around 17% total to tax.
I earn more and lose around 30%.
This year I took a pay cut - my net pay went down by 60% of the gross pay cut. That is what I understand by 40% marginal tax - what do you understand by it ?
I lose more both in percentage and actual than someone who earns less, and I know that rule carries on down to those who earn a lot less - I lived on benefits too at one time. That is what I understand by tax is less if you're poor - how do you get that it is much much more ?
Please explain it to me - put numbers down if need be. Seriously - I'm interested.
This is the UK we're talking about (RTFA)
It's less if you're poor, a lot less if you're really poor.
It's 40% marginal (actually 41% since April when they slapped a 1% extra national insurance charge on whole of salary rather than capped like other NI charges) if you're on a reasonable salary.
It works that way up to a point - but if the government then chooses to share the code with someone else they aren't allowed to restrict that someone else from further sharing the code under the GPL.
If you commision GPL code from another party you could limit their rights by contract (you haven't distributed the code to them under the GPL, they have distributed it to you).
If you bring someone in as a contractor to do work for hire on the code then you may not have "distributed" the code outside of your organisation - so they might not have rights to it under GPL.
If you want another organisation to work on the code you have to distribute it to them under GPL, which would seem to mean that you can't place further restrictions (like NDA, classified etc.) on them that would prevent them distributing the code further.
GPL doesn't prevent you keeping things secret. It does prevent you doing a limited distribution and requiring the recipients to keep things secret. Unfortunately that is exactly what most military stuff needs - "secret" classification doesn't mean you can't tell anyone, it means you can't tell anyone who hasn't got the right clearance (which means they can't tell...).
roadrunner=Linux
[ eg. Linus is driving, Alan Cox et al in the first carriage. RMS is hanging off the back of the guards van painting "GNU/" on the side... ]
Reply: thank you for calling tech support, your call is held in our queuing system and will be answered as soon as one of our operators is available, in the meantime here is some light music...
Airbuses glide too: link - landed at night as well.
There are no backups for multiple engine failure on any dual-engine airliner - one engine backs up the other, and that's it. Having a backup engine wouldn't help anyway if you've run out of fuel, which (believe it or not) is the main cause of all-engines-fail on big airliners (and it isn't considered near-impossible, there are many documented occurences).
Not sure what the weather is like there but that gap won't look so big in force 6+ and 20ft swell, or at night or in fog...
I guess they'll have to put lights and foghorns on each (like a mini lighthouse) which would add to the visual and noise pollution (I don't think I'd want to live within three miles of one lighthouse let alone dozens).
Marker bouys aren't exactly 100% effective - eg. when the tricolor sank in the channel they put several bouys, radar beacon, continuous costguard radio warnings and three warships (ok, they were french...) on station, and still the wreck got hit twice in only a few days.
As they put more of these offshore windmills up, sooner or later someone _will_ ram a ship into them - just a question of when and how many / how bad. I mean if you stick a massive oil rig miles from anywhere in the north sea (and light it up like a christmas tree) you'd think it would be pretty safe from collision ? - nope they get hit too.
Your comment on airplane noise made me remember:
Airport operators (here in UK) often end up having to compensate house owners within particular distances (noise levels) by installing double/triple glazing and sound insulation. A company I worked for (some years ago) ended up having to do exactly the same for houses close to wind turbines - they do cause noise pollution comparable to an airport.