However, you do remind them of the joys of the gulag, and expect them to work with apparent enthusiasm...
Yes... but unfortunately for you, if you don't understand what they're doing, then you have no way of telling whether they're actually enthusiastic or not. Your only choices are handing out punishment arbitrarily (thereby sabotaging your own work if you're wrong) or just letting them work (and let them sabotage your work at their leisure).
It took Korolyov YEARS just too replicate Von Braun's V-2 in Russia, and that was working *with* Von Braun's own assistant, Helmut Gröttrup.
Maybe that was the reason. You don't snatch someone and make them work for you on a technology you barely understand yourself, and expect them to work with any enthusiasm.
That's irrelevant. If cyclists didn't deliberately ride dangerously and make themselves hard to see, they wouldn't get in accidents.
Still, the only thing that's frightening about stupid cyclists is the possible legal fallout, if you're not too squeamish about the possible bloody mess.
If there's no wind anywhere on the planet at some time this means that one of two things has happened: Either Earths atmosphere has escaped into space, or it has frozen solid. In both cases we will have much, much bigger problems than wind turbines not generating any electriticy.
Just unplug the GPS antenna or cover it with tinfoil.
If that works, it's an example of lousy safety design. A proper safety mechanism would make sure that GPS reception is available _and_ the data indicates that the vehicle is stationary.
Even "full force of law" means the culprit gets to sit in old sparky, that won't bring a dead person back, enable a cripple to walk again etc.
No no no, in case of liability, it just means that they'll be financially liquidated in order to compensate their victims. Of course, a little creativity in this process could also provide a viable deterrent.
..there is such a thing as personal responsibility
Your personal responsibility should be limited to your net worth. Otherwise, it's not your personal responsibility, but someone elses (whoever has to eat the difference between what you and your insurance are able to pay and the actual damage you caused).
Basic stuff, like that x+sizeof(int)*y points tho the y'th element of an int array called x.
Not in C or in C++, if x is actually an int array or a pointer to int. x+sizeof(int)*y will point to the (y*sizeof(int))th element. x+y will point to the y'th element.
Yes, well it's all well and good that those farmers are making money off wind turbines, but the question was, "What will we eat?" Mainly addressing the loss of usable land to grow our food crops and livestock.
As long as their tractor-driving skills are good enough to avoid the base of the masts, that shouldn't be a big concern.
think you're missing the point that profit = gross income - costs. If you develop 10 drugs at a cost of millions per drug, and only one of them make it out of FDA approval, that one drug has to recover the costs of all 10 drugs in order for the company to turn a profit.
Most drugs that don't get FDA approval do so for a reason. If FDA approval was not necessary and the companies just skipped parts of the testing, they might just have to pay for all the lawsuits that result. And I don't think that courts today will let drug companies off the hook as easily as it happened to Grünenthal back then.
And many potential drugs will fail well before the approval phase - either because they're not really better than existing drugs, or have obvious side-effects that show even before any clinical trials.
Not exactly. A friend of mine is the lead pharmacist for a company that specializes in making orphan drugs.
Have you looked at all the incentives offered by the government for making such drugs? They wouldn't get made otherwise.
I think you're more referring to the problem that drug companies won't focus R&D money on treating rare diseases, which is why we have government programs.
That's a separate issue that's even worse than existing, orphaned drugs. Some diseases have been "waiting" for years for new drugs (e.g. Chagas), but there's not much money in making the existing ones already.
Have you considered that you may be mistaken regarding how commonly used that term is?
It's mentioned in books about patterns/antipatterns.
It's basically a class that meddles with too many parts of the whole program, which violates several concepts usually considered "good" about OOP like encapsulation and information hiding.
You're thinking too complicated. We're dealing with malware and possibly obfuscation to make analysis a bit harder, and you are dealing with a program that runs fine (a non-working trojan is about as useful to the infector as a non-existing trojan, so it is working allright).
O... kay. Assuming that x86 doesn't barf when the instruction pointer isn't word- or whatever aligned (like ARM would), the "instructions" following the call of this function are actually "shifted" by one byte and I'd tell the disassembler to ignore the byte following immediately after the function in order to see the code that's actually being executed.
E.g. if the function call is followed by "0x01 0x02 0x03 0x04", then the disassembler needs to tell me what instruction(s) "0x02 0x03 0x04" corresponds to, and not what "0x01 0x02 0x03 0x04" corresponds to.
Slashdot Mirror
The Japanese would have solved this by not having any bomb bay doors in the first place.
Heck, 1940's radar wasn't even radar, it was just ra__r. The __ad_ was originally just added to confuse enemy intelligence services.
Yes ... but unfortunately for you, if you don't understand what they're doing, then you have no way of telling whether they're actually enthusiastic or not. Your only choices are handing out punishment arbitrarily (thereby sabotaging your own work if you're wrong) or just letting them work (and let them sabotage your work at their leisure).
The Thach Weave helps exactly zero when you're trying to keep a bomber from dropping a ton of explosives on your war assets/cities/etc.
And it doesn't help against an attacker that's much faster (in general, not just when diving) than your own planes, either.
Hand in your geek card, youngster. I was flying this in "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" from LucasArts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Weapons_of_the_Luftwaffe
Doesn't matter what the plane is made out of as long as it's faster, accelerates faster, and climbs faster than than what the other side has.
It took Korolyov YEARS just too replicate Von Braun's V-2 in Russia, and that was working *with* Von Braun's own assistant, Helmut Gröttrup.
Maybe that was the reason. You don't snatch someone and make them work for you on a technology you barely understand yourself, and expect them to work with any enthusiasm.
Consider this, maybe the front passenger is looking at the news/weather during an emergency.. a perfectly legitimate purpose
Unless everyone in the car is deaf, listening to the radio is perfectly sufficient and much less distracting.
Still, the only thing that's frightening about stupid cyclists is the possible legal fallout, if you're not too squeamish about the possible bloody mess.
If there's no wind anywhere on the planet at some time this means that one of two things has happened: Either Earths atmosphere has escaped into space, or it has frozen solid. In both cases we will have much, much bigger problems than wind turbines not generating any electriticy.
And all of that sewage water is coming out of thin air? Err ... no. It comes from municipalities that each have their own water sources.
How many car drivers have been killed in accidents with bicycles lately?
If that works, it's an example of lousy safety design. A proper safety mechanism would make sure that GPS reception is available _and_ the data indicates that the vehicle is stationary.
It's probably a tuner for digital tv now. ;)
No no no, in case of liability, it just means that they'll be financially liquidated in order to compensate their victims. Of course, a little creativity in this process could also provide a viable deterrent.
Your personal responsibility should be limited to your net worth. Otherwise, it's not your personal responsibility, but someone elses (whoever has to eat the difference between what you and your insurance are able to pay and the actual damage you caused).
Basic stuff, like that x+sizeof(int)*y points tho the y'th element of an int array called x.
Not in C or in C++, if x is actually an int array or a pointer to int. x+sizeof(int)*y will point to the (y*sizeof(int))th element. x+y will point to the y'th element.
As long as their tractor-driving skills are good enough to avoid the base of the masts, that shouldn't be a big concern.
Most drugs that don't get FDA approval do so for a reason. If FDA approval was not necessary and the companies just skipped parts of the testing, they might just have to pay for all the lawsuits that result. And I don't think that courts today will let drug companies off the hook as easily as it happened to Grünenthal back then.
And many potential drugs will fail well before the approval phase - either because they're not really better than existing drugs, or have obvious side-effects that show even before any clinical trials.
Not exactly. A friend of mine is the lead pharmacist for a company that specializes in making orphan drugs.
Have you looked at all the incentives offered by the government for making such drugs? They wouldn't get made otherwise.
I think you're more referring to the problem that drug companies won't focus R&D money on treating rare diseases, which is why we have government programs.
That's a separate issue that's even worse than existing, orphaned drugs. Some diseases have been "waiting" for years for new drugs (e.g. Chagas), but there's not much money in making the existing ones already.
According to the dictionary (which I linked to) and popular usage,
In that case, that dictionary has the definition wrong.
Here's mine:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catheter
"Code complete"
Only if it's a primitive god class. Sophisticated god classes will only do a little work in each part of the application.
It's mentioned in books about patterns/antipatterns.
It's basically a class that meddles with too many parts of the whole program, which violates several concepts usually considered "good" about OOP like encapsulation and information hiding.
O ... kay. Assuming that x86 doesn't barf when the instruction pointer isn't word- or whatever aligned (like ARM would), the "instructions" following the call of this function are actually "shifted" by one byte and I'd tell the disassembler to ignore the byte following immediately after the function in order to see the code that's actually being executed.
E.g. if the function call is followed by "0x01 0x02 0x03 0x04", then the disassembler needs to tell me what instruction(s) "0x02 0x03 0x04" corresponds to, and not what "0x01 0x02 0x03 0x04" corresponds to.
About as much as KFC has to do with chickens.