Not with current land-based planes. See, navy planes are reinforced exactly to deal with forces coming from the hooks (both on the landing and on the take-off). In a land-based plane, impulse comes only from the exhaust jet. In a CATOBAR plane, impulse alosn can come from the front, from the take-off hook, so extra planning is needed. Sure enough, land based planes are often towed for parking from the landing gear by service vehicles, but both the acceleration and speed are nothing like this.
For the Rafale, a plane that has both a navalized and land-based versions from the start, the navy version is reinforced and that leads to more weight (about 1 tonne, IIRC). This for a somewhat small fighter jet. Imagine for a bigger, commercial airplane. And, the heavier the plane, the bigger is the proportion of it's weight has to be reinforcement. I bet companies would stick to a higher payload instead of a reinforced, more fuel demanding airplane.
Nevertheless, amazing achievement for the Navy. Maybe it has some hobbyists/scientific uses for civilians, but I believe that's it.
Oh, that's easy. The real ones are when two people love and care for each other and hope to leave the remaining of their lives together. The fake ones are motivated by economic, politics, or even when two teenagers are bullied to it by their parents.
It always amazed me that (most) religions are fast to discard the former if the couple are from the same gender, but absolutely have no problem whatsoever with the latter if it's between a man and a woman, even when it's obvious there's no love. You know, that "God's gift".
I get that most people don't realize that it doesn't end the way it seems it ends (the kicker: the long and somewhat strange talk with the prision officer of how it's to be in suspended animation). But if you pay attention I'll realize maybe one the finest Spielberg moments of all time. Even the exceptional lame way his wife discovers what happened starts to make perfect sense when you consider that conversation in the beginning.
I've been hearing this kind of stuff since at least 2002. Still using Delphi and waiting for judgment day. It is funny how VB'ers were for some time the most vocal group preaching Delphi's imminent demise, and then they were struck with the "Visual Fred" fiasco. Many of them had to learn OOP the hard way, many didn't and are still supporting VB6 apps.
Anyway you can use the open-source Free Pascal or other proprietary solutions for Pascal. With both Delphi and Free-Pascal current multiplatform capabilities, I bet many companies that unsuccessfully tried to migrate Delphi internal apps to Java, C# or other offerings are having a second thought about it.
In my experience (about 20 years professionally working with Delphi, since the first version), the biggest advantage of Object Pascal over C++ is its strong typing discipline. It makes a program more maintainable on the long run, and errors are easier both to avoid and find. Pointer and String handling are also better in Pascal IMHO, and finally compilation time is also much shorter, which is not something to be disregarded when debugging a big project.
Against Java or Python, desktop applications are usually more responsive with Object Pascal as it outputs machine code without JIT or GC involved (and usually Delphi will output a single.exe, without the need for any DLLs). Sure enough, you have to remember to destroy your objects, although newest versions of Delphi can use ARC on mobile platforms.
My 2c. Sure I've already used all 3 (Python, C++ and Java) when I needed, but I've never felt as productive in any of these as I am in Object Pascal. So maybe the language has it's values.
"While stressing over Ebola, the media is oblivious to true public health threats like obesity, heart disease, drunk driving, diabetes, and the like."
No, it's not. Actually, no matter how much the media repeat warnings about these issues, PEOPLE (a part of them) is oblivious to these public health issues. I dare you to watch CNN or read MSN, HuffPo or any news aggregator a day without something being said about at least one of these issues, mostly (in US) obesity. We even had a mayor on NYC that went into a series of highly controversial steps to prevent obesity (limiting size of sodas, really? Coach potatoes would buy 2 of them). it's just that some people doesn't pay attention because they don't want to change their lifestyle.
Ebola is something "new", so gets more flash from news outlets since people will cringe for, well, news. It's the way people work, unfortunately. In a BTVS season, the much bigger issues above would be the Big Bad. Ebola is just the monster of the week. Granted, it gets full attention now, but once current crisis is gone, I doubt you'll hear about it until another outbreak.
Yeah, but you seem to forget that those privately owned complexes are only profitable beyond a certain level of occupation.
For they, to place somebody in prison for whatever reason is always welcome.
Well, except for the part that Ed Harris was actually John Glenn, and Armstrong, for not being in the Mercury program, wasn't even in the movie (he started at Gemini), yeah, I agree with you.
Mod parent up, IIRC there's no reason to believe there's an actual war between the 3 superpowers in '1984' book, apart from the totalitarian government propaganda.
This stems from the completely broken Christian concept that children are innocent and therefore must be protected at all costs from anything and everything.
You know what's fun? Try to discover at which age Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Agreed, treating space combat as an air combat without the ground is so silly, and Galactica should be praised for trying to change this. But the lack of laser weapons was a mistake. They make much more sense for a fight in space than the cannons the Vipers had not only talking about speed to the target to avoid defensive maneuver (when you see it, you're already hit), but also the lack of recoil, which is more problematic in the vacuum.
Since guns have grease, dirty, etc. I believe they were there to make the Viper a somewhat more "realistic" spaceship. But to me, it had the opposite effect, it was just bizarre.
Altough I think the first part of the book is much too, well, "crazy" to be taken as a menace to the church by the censors of the time, I agree, it's possible that he was only self-preserving.
Reminds me of Einstein. Both of them made huge discoveries that ended up scaring them. Einstein negated quantum mechanics (which his works helped create), and even came with a "cosmological constant" when he saw his equations couldn't contemplate a peaceful, organized space in which he (and the rest of the world) believed at that time. Descartes have made such a gigantic leap in thinking, came to the aforementioned conclusion, that even he got scared with the implications and then came with some half-baked "proof" on the existence of God to find some relief.
I don't blame them. They were intellectual giants, but men nevertheless. Men that can be afraid of schocking discoveries, even if they came from their own, powerful, minds.
Altough it seems a reasonable, positive, even obvious law, it might also be the first step to make it easier to sue people from sharing. If some dumb user does unawarely install something in his/her machine, not bothering to read some comprehensive, law-enforced EULA, and share some DMCA-protected content without knowing, seems to me that RIAA lawyers will have a much stronger case against them - that might be the motive they are being specific about P2P programs, and not every junk people put on their machines. IANAL, but it seems to me that "I didn't know these files were being shared" kind of defenses will hold much less under these new provisions, and it's possible this might be the hidden objective of this law. I hope some lawyer here in/., proves me wrong on this.
It makes nothing to the great dead man who suffered this injustice, but the acceptance, by the government, that it was a wrongdoing, turns it more difficult to happen again. And this is far from nothing.
Sure. And, just to use your minimalistic example, one has at least to learn how to read and write to make a "Hello World", but even cavemen knew how to make simple bridges. Beavers know how to make dams.
But the point is, Software and Civil Engineering are so different disciplines that analogies are useless, theirs complexities are from different natures. Requirements of a bridge can't change drastically after a its construction has begun. Big new features aren't asked to be implemented after it has been built. The problems and complexities of traditional engineering fields (I happen to be an electrical engineer) don't map to the ones in the software industry. Sure, there's a lot to be improved on software, but flawed analogies won't help.
Even more, any 3-year-old child can perfectly understand what a bridge does. It's obvious, unambiguous, clear. You only have to see it. Now, try to explain to the kid what an ERP does. Compare the functional requirements of a bridge to those of any medium-sized commercial software and find which one is more complex, or which one will have more changes during the project lifetime.
Fact is, we have a distinct science/engineering/craft/whateveryoucallit here. Analogies are pointless.
Gee, how much prejudice can come from a single post...
Weel, what you say is a false dilemma, isn't it? Sure it's way more important to have air travel for the masses, but, as an engineer, I think it's also important to have tech challenges like the Concorde and the Apollo program. Research in both programs brought advances in many areas that makes current low-fare transatlantic trips possible. From your post, it seems that some decades ago you would be arguing against planes (elite toys) and advocating for cheaper ship fares (for the masses).
And, no, I've never crossed the Atlantic at all - only travelled in planes once, no money for big vacations. Altough I've had more than my share of 9-hours long bus travels, if it compares...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe many more than five?
And it was much better than the latest Star Wars.
Not with current land-based planes. See, navy planes are reinforced exactly to deal with forces coming from the hooks (both on the landing and on the take-off). In a land-based plane, impulse comes only from the exhaust jet. In a CATOBAR plane, impulse alosn can come from the front, from the take-off hook, so extra planning is needed. Sure enough, land based planes are often towed for parking from the landing gear by service vehicles, but both the acceleration and speed are nothing like this.
For the Rafale, a plane that has both a navalized and land-based versions from the start, the navy version is reinforced and that leads to more weight (about 1 tonne, IIRC). This for a somewhat small fighter jet. Imagine for a bigger, commercial airplane. And, the heavier the plane, the bigger is the proportion of it's weight has to be reinforcement. I bet companies would stick to a higher payload instead of a reinforced, more fuel demanding airplane.
Nevertheless, amazing achievement for the Navy. Maybe it has some hobbyists/scientific uses for civilians, but I believe that's it.
Oh, that's easy. The real ones are when two people love and care for each other and hope to leave the remaining of their lives together. The fake ones are motivated by economic, politics, or even when two teenagers are bullied to it by their parents.
It always amazed me that (most) religions are fast to discard the former if the couple are from the same gender, but absolutely have no problem whatsoever with the latter if it's between a man and a woman, even when it's obvious there's no love. You know, that "God's gift".
What's wrong with Minority Report?
I get that most people don't realize that it doesn't end the way it seems it ends (the kicker: the long and somewhat strange talk with the prision officer of how it's to be in suspended animation). But if you pay attention I'll realize maybe one the finest Spielberg moments of all time. Even the exceptional lame way his wife discovers what happened starts to make perfect sense when you consider that conversation in the beginning.
I've been hearing this kind of stuff since at least 2002. Still using Delphi and waiting for judgment day. It is funny how VB'ers were for some time the most vocal group preaching Delphi's imminent demise, and then they were struck with the "Visual Fred" fiasco. Many of them had to learn OOP the hard way, many didn't and are still supporting VB6 apps.
Anyway you can use the open-source Free Pascal or other proprietary solutions for Pascal. With both Delphi and Free-Pascal current multiplatform capabilities, I bet many companies that unsuccessfully tried to migrate Delphi internal apps to Java, C# or other offerings are having a second thought about it.
In my experience (about 20 years professionally working with Delphi, since the first version), the biggest advantage of Object Pascal over C++ is its strong typing discipline. It makes a program more maintainable on the long run, and errors are easier both to avoid and find. Pointer and String handling are also better in Pascal IMHO, and finally compilation time is also much shorter, which is not something to be disregarded when debugging a big project. Against Java or Python, desktop applications are usually more responsive with Object Pascal as it outputs machine code without JIT or GC involved (and usually Delphi will output a single .exe, without the need for any DLLs). Sure enough, you have to remember to destroy your objects, although newest versions of Delphi can use ARC on mobile platforms.
My 2c. Sure I've already used all 3 (Python, C++ and Java) when I needed, but I've never felt as productive in any of these as I am in Object Pascal. So maybe the language has it's values.
"While stressing over Ebola, the media is oblivious to true public health threats like obesity, heart disease, drunk driving, diabetes, and the like."
No, it's not. Actually, no matter how much the media repeat warnings about these issues, PEOPLE (a part of them) is oblivious to these public health issues. I dare you to watch CNN or read MSN, HuffPo or any news aggregator a day without something being said about at least one of these issues, mostly (in US) obesity. We even had a mayor on NYC that went into a series of highly controversial steps to prevent obesity (limiting size of sodas, really? Coach potatoes would buy 2 of them). it's just that some people doesn't pay attention because they don't want to change their lifestyle.
Ebola is something "new", so gets more flash from news outlets since people will cringe for, well, news. It's the way people work, unfortunately. In a BTVS season, the much bigger issues above would be the Big Bad. Ebola is just the monster of the week. Granted, it gets full attention now, but once current crisis is gone, I doubt you'll hear about it until another outbreak.
Yeah, but you seem to forget that those privately owned complexes are only profitable beyond a certain level of occupation. For they, to place somebody in prison for whatever reason is always welcome.
At least once.
Well, except for the part that Ed Harris was actually John Glenn, and Armstrong, for not being in the Mercury program, wasn't even in the movie (he started at Gemini), yeah, I agree with you.
Totally agree.
Mod parent up, IIRC there's no reason to believe there's an actual war between the 3 superpowers in '1984' book, apart from the totalitarian government propaganda.
This stems from the completely broken Christian concept that children are innocent and therefore must be protected at all costs from anything and everything.
You know what's fun? Try to discover at which age Mary gave birth to Jesus.
It's ironic in so many levels...
Agreed, treating space combat as an air combat without the ground is so silly, and Galactica should be praised for trying to change this. But the lack of laser weapons was a mistake. They make much more sense for a fight in space than the cannons the Vipers had not only talking about speed to the target to avoid defensive maneuver (when you see it, you're already hit), but also the lack of recoil, which is more problematic in the vacuum.
Since guns have grease, dirty, etc. I believe they were there to make the Viper a somewhat more "realistic" spaceship. But to me, it had the opposite effect, it was just bizarre.
But all I said to my wife was "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!"
Altough I think the first part of the book is much too, well, "crazy" to be taken as a menace to the church by the censors of the time, I agree, it's possible that he was only self-preserving.
Yeah, I felt the same way.
Reminds me of Einstein. Both of them made huge discoveries that ended up scaring them. Einstein negated quantum mechanics (which his works helped create), and even came with a "cosmological constant" when he saw his equations couldn't contemplate a peaceful, organized space in which he (and the rest of the world) believed at that time. Descartes have made such a gigantic leap in thinking, came to the aforementioned conclusion, that even he got scared with the implications and then came with some half-baked "proof" on the existence of God to find some relief.
I don't blame them. They were intellectual giants, but men nevertheless. Men that can be afraid of schocking discoveries, even if they came from their own, powerful, minds.
Altough it seems a reasonable, positive, even obvious law, it might also be the first step to make it easier to sue people from sharing. If some dumb user does unawarely install something in his/her machine, not bothering to read some comprehensive, law-enforced EULA, and share some DMCA-protected content without knowing, seems to me that RIAA lawyers will have a much stronger case against them - that might be the motive they are being specific about P2P programs, and not every junk people put on their machines. IANAL, but it seems to me that "I didn't know these files were being shared" kind of defenses will hold much less under these new provisions, and it's possible this might be the hidden objective of this law. I hope some lawyer here in /., proves me wrong on this.
It makes nothing to the great dead man who suffered this injustice, but the acceptance, by the government, that it was a wrongdoing, turns it more difficult to happen again. And this is far from nothing.
Wikipedia is your friend.
There is absolutely no bubble in the internet
Sure. And, just to use your minimalistic example, one has at least to learn how to read and write to make a "Hello World", but even cavemen knew how to make simple bridges. Beavers know how to make dams.
But the point is, Software and Civil Engineering are so different disciplines that analogies are useless, theirs complexities are from different natures. Requirements of a bridge can't change drastically after a its construction has begun. Big new features aren't asked to be implemented after it has been built. The problems and complexities of traditional engineering fields (I happen to be an electrical engineer) don't map to the ones in the software industry. Sure, there's a lot to be improved on software, but flawed analogies won't help.
Even more, any 3-year-old child can perfectly understand what a bridge does. It's obvious, unambiguous, clear. You only have to see it. Now, try to explain to the kid what an ERP does. Compare the functional requirements of a bridge to those of any medium-sized commercial software and find which one is more complex, or which one will have more changes during the project lifetime.
Fact is, we have a distinct science/engineering/craft/whateveryoucallit here. Analogies are pointless.
Gee, how much prejudice can come from a single post...
:-)
Weel, what you say is a false dilemma, isn't it? Sure it's way more important to have air travel for the masses, but, as an engineer, I think it's also important to have tech challenges like the Concorde and the Apollo program. Research in both programs brought advances in many areas that makes current low-fare transatlantic trips possible. From your post, it seems that some decades ago you would be arguing against planes (elite toys) and advocating for cheaper ship fares (for the masses).
And, no, I've never crossed the Atlantic at all - only travelled in planes once, no money for big vacations. Altough I've had more than my share of 9-hours long bus travels, if it compares...