open source contributor to hyperledger sawtooth and seth, apache brooklyn, jclouds and qpid; enterprise software engineer; java, big data, cloud, security, open source, distributed systems, messaging, virtualisation, lolcats.
See P A Luty [0] and his submachinegun, made entirely from scratch using basic machine shop tools (i.e. not requiring a CNC machine, just a bench drill, hacksaw, angle grinders and various hand tools, see page 4 in his book. [1]) which was tested and confirmed as a viable firearm by the UK police (in order to prosecute him) although it doesn't have a rifled barrel...
Hm. I think perhaps a better way of putting it is that the hard AND issue is when people search using a natural language type query (I know about stop words, assume these are always filtered out) and include some extraneous term, so 'What is that new crime novel by John Grisham about a Penguin I think?' will return nothing, and no amount of extra terms added at the end will help, until you delete 'Penguin'... Of course it's anecdotal, but I still suspect it's one of the reasons for the hard AND to OR switch...
Understood - I wasn't really serious! However, when I worked in the City back in the late nineties/early two thousands I lived in Islington (20ish minute walk, one stop on the tube) first, and then EC1 (10 minutes or less walking) and although you're right about paying more, as a contractor for a bank, it was still affordable. Plus, I never needed a season ticket, I could pop home for lunch, and it was an interesting area (near Hoxton, Shoreditch, and so on) to live. Admittedly I was much younger and not married, which would definitely change your priorities...
You could move closer to where you work, so you have a 15 minute bike ride to and from there every day, saving you two and a half hours. Use that time to mend things so that you save money, which you can use to pay for the more expensive house! Problem solved, you can thank me later...
sure, i agree, except that they also apply this 'narrowing down' logic when insufficient or no results are returned, thinking the query needs to be more specific in order to work. i have observed the following sort of behaviour:
1. entering 'invisible marmalade teapot' and getting no results
2. changing to 'invisible marmalade teapot with tartan cosy', again nothing
3. so 'invisible marmalade teapot with tartan cosy in outer space', ditto
you get the idea...? it's just like in the real world, when you might go to a bookshop and say
You: do you have that new crime novel in stock?
Bookseller: er, i don't know which one you mean?
Y: the new crime novel by john grisham, pelican something or other?
B: oh, right, yes, here it is!
and everyone is happy.
default OR in a search engine would mean my first example eventually starting to return results about transparent space coffee pots with tartan cosies, ignoring the first few terms but the rest match, which is often helpful, particularly if you're doing an exploratory search for something where you aren't sure of the exact details.
Yeah, seems like there are some questions that are incredibly specific at localising. For me, it was the name for the metal cover for drains - I answered 'stank' and it guessed Glasgow and immediate surrounding areas, which is exactly right... I guess most areas have this sort of shibboleth - in fact, that's basically what the term means I suppose!
The problem with AND as a default is that 'normal' people (i.e. people who have no idea what boolean means) operate search engines something like this: 1. type some words in, and get no or incorrect results; 2. add some extra words, and repeat the search, with the idea they are making the search more specific; 3. be confused as to why they still don't get the results they want. a default of OR, on the other hand, means adding search terms ends up being useful...
security related positions, such as application penetration testing, physical pen testing, etc. all require the "security mindset" which is essentially the skill of thinking adversarily and breaking things.
Which, although technically correct, is still quite misleading and misses out the fact that this was done purely as a precaution, since the actual crack causing the failure did not come from a passenger window [0] but rather the ADF aerial square cutouts in the roof. These are what the photograph in the article shows, and the position is also highlighted in the diagram there. The 'square' passenger windows, as pointed out in the wiki link cited above, had similar corner radii (or smaller in some cases) to those of the Boeing 377 and Douglas DC-7 aircraft.
That doesn't sound right (well, Qantas did have RR engine trouble, as did all RR engined A380s) as all A380 fleets have four of the same type/manufacturer of engine (RR or GE, depending on the airline) and it will be common across all the planes in the fleet. It doesn't make sense to have to double up on maintenance costs, equipment and engineering staff with two types, plus the added risk of a GE bolt/whatever accidentally fitted to a RR engine causing an accident...
I'm not 100% sure that's true - for example, today we have hugely improved development environments, IDEs, source control, collaboration tools, simulators, debuggers, documentation (particularly in terms of easily available and instant access to low level details and also searchability) and so on, which (probably?) make it easier to produce code, and perform tasks that would have been impossible or intractable back then...
On the ATR-72 [0] there is an extra leg that folds down at the back of the plane to stop it tipping over, and passengers at the front half must remain seated until the rear pax have left, so there must be some danger of unbalancing. These are weird planes in that the cargo is stored at the front, behind the pilots, and the only door is at the rear. They are prop planes, the 72 being a stretched 42, I believe.
Also, since upgrades are to the next higher seat class only, with PE you stand the chance of getting moved to J, on the rare occasions the stars line up correctly and you get it for free, or of course if you pay for it at check-in, or if you have status, etc.
For point 3. I believe Airbus has a lot of commonality between its cockpits on different aircraft, so it is easier to get type certified on an A350 or A320 if the pilot already has a rating on the A380. This means the reserve crew can fly the other smaller planes when not required for the A380. Boeing has not had this commonality until recently - I think it was a selling point for the 787 that it had the same cockpit layout as the 777, thus minimising crew training.
Look at BA flight 001, which is a transatlantic flight from LCY/SNN to JFK in an Airbus A318-100 [0] with only 32 (business class) seats. According to BA, a standard two class configuration would seat 107. Admittedly, it has to refuel in Shannon to allow it to make the Westbound leg, but the Eastbound trip goes non-stop from New York to London.
> make the whole concept of us humans not laying eggs, putting some semen and mud on them and disappear into the wilderness an evolutional waste of time.
> putting some semen and mud on them and disappear into the wilderness
And, welcome to the UK! We only had about three or four minutes warning time available, so when the sirens went off, that was all the time the population had to prepare/shelter, and obviously the authorities also only had that amount of time to decide on a response... This includes getting all your bomber aeroplanes started up, launched and in the air sufficiently far from the airfield to escape the blast radius of the weapons (probably Megaton range) used to destroy it!
No, point 4 was about the fact that somehow it is racist to prosecute people of type X for crimes they commit if those crimes are discovered because of an investigation into a different type of crime (which only type X people commit) - the alternative being to give them a free pass, I assume? The premise doesn't hold water anyway, since even in this hypothetical world where only type X are terrorists, I assume terrorism is still a rare event? So, the extra crimes discovered in the course of terrorism investigations into type X suspects will be dwarfed by the investigations into normal crimes in the whole population during the course of normal every day police work.
// Assuming the police are not incompetent, of course, which may not hold in your hypothetical world where they investigate non type X people for terrorism even though they commit zero percent of terrorist attacks - probably out of some misguided diversity quota or affirmative action policy, I assume? ;)
Re the systematic racist bias in 4. - since you postulate a world in which 100% of terrorists are muslims, why would anyone non-muslim ever be investigated for terrorism? (whether with 'gusto' or not)
In your examples, the probability of a random green ball having property X is always higher than that of a random ball. If the incidence of X in the green population is higher than the base rate, then if a random ball is green, it means it is more likely to be X.
Those are actually pretty terrible, probably written after reading GEB. ESR is trying to emulate Hofstadter but isn't clever enough, so they are all based on a one-trick pony, search-and-replace joke that wears thin quickly.
Yeah, it's like open sourcing code for 3D immersive visualisation of deep-water seismic survey data, along with the detailed blueprints for the ROV and survey equipment. Awesome enough, sure, but pretty much useless to me. I can build the software like a boss on my laptop, but since I don't have access to any seismic survey data, a CAVE room to view it in, an oceanographic survey vessel, ROV and associated equipment, etc. that's as good as it gets. And, if I had all that awesome oil industry exploration stuff, I'd probably also have a team of engineers building me software anyway, so I don't need it.
My point? Open sourcing stuff with ridiculously huge capital requirements is not that useful, I guess?
Did you read the link? See popehat [0] as well. The prosecutors said he should get the 6 or 7 years. And, if the judge went crazy and ignored the guidelines, this is what appeals are for. You seem to be the one lacking intellectual honesty here!
Interesting, did not know about coffee pots. However for pump handles the contact area and time in contact is much greater than a single touch of one fingertip, plus the fact that it is much more likely for the hand on the pump to then immediately be in contact with drinking utensils or even wiping the mouth etc. So I still think crossing buttons are not a plausible vector. Be happy to read any sources that contradict this though...
Really? I don't think there would be any change or effect regarding microbes passed around the population if pedestrian crossing buttons did not exist. They just aren't a disease vector, or at the most optimistic are down in the statistical noise at a one in millions chance of having an effect.
If action X is unethical/immoral in some situation S, this in no way implies that for all situations, X is unethical/immoral. See killing people for an example, perhaps, or maybe telling people they are (not) ugly?