|
2 pads are plenty.
1 for you to escape from (while holding the hot babe hostage)
and
1 for Bond to give chase from (to save and bed the hot babe)
Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: to save and bed the hot babe
Queue scene: Blofeld waving fist in the air - "Damn you Booond!" 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: “To test every combination of workstation modes at one second per test would take of the order of 100 years, without considering all the other parameters,” the CAA said.
According to the report on the last NATS failure[^].
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'll just be heading to the Caribbean whilst they get the kinks out.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back in 100 years...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Please, someone has to tell that dunce that he can have as many machines running tests in parallel as he likes or can afford.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately
Many of the tests involve flying an aircraft through a sector, and this takes
many minutes, not a second
So unless you can have parallel dimensions in which to fly aircraft, the software testing they have in place will just have to suffice.
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time I got air defense training with a whole trailer full of analog electronics from the early 1960s, plugged right inbetween the radar antenna and the fire control equipment. Just think what kind of things you could simulate and test automatically with modern equipment.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
In the linked pdf it says they do have a bunch of equipment for testing. "NATS test labs have extensive representative hardware, including a full SFS set-up"
So i'm still going to presume that it is not possible to test everything that extensively. Surely if they could, they would.
In this case it's not even that the systems weren't tested, its that the test they had run had returned positive. (ie, they weren't tested well enough to begin with)
|
|
|
|
|
At the same time, this is the exact reason why I don't trust all kinds of autonomous devices, automated cars or similar. The real world is almost infinitely complex and what tests can guarantee the correctness of learning algorithms under all circumstances?
I am also convinced that robots will be one of the next revolutions in technology.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Mushrow wrote: Many of the tests involve flying an aircraft through a sector, and this takes many minutes, not a second
Now this is some high level BS !! Unless communication is made using pidgeons - and even for that there must be an iPigeonSimulation, there are signals involved, and signals can be simulated. Or recorded and replayed.
|
|
|
|
|
I am just playing with Visual Studio Community, and wow, it is good. The last I have used was ... version 6 (maybe had once a 2008 open). 
|
|
|
|
|
2015 RC? That is truly brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure about version 6, or maybe you used Carbon-14 emissions to date it?
Just kidding...I also used version 6, but at that time Americas, Africa and Asia were a single land called Pangea. 
|
|
|
|
|
I got out of programming when C# was introduced, a solid ten years ago. Just follow my authority rep curve, and you can trace my life back (I was active on the C++ forum back then, and was very experienced with MFC).
Honestly, I programmed this morning in three hours a .dll used in a third party tool, in C++, got it up und running without error on the first test (in Release !), so I am more than proud of myself. Seems like programming is like riding a bike, you never forget it.
There is no comparison with the improvement of the IDE and Intellisense and ... everything. I have seen a lot of people here bashing it, but my own first impression was very good. Maybe I am still in the euphoria of being allowed again to program 
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome!
Today you made a huge step forward. Tomorrow, step your second one: forget C/C++ and join C#!
Still I'm wondering why there are so many "paleontologists" digging for solving the problems with C/C++...
Don't care what I'm saying...I just hate those messy languages...
Good luck, anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, I just happen to love C++; I am not the garbage collecting type of guy pointer rules
|
|
|
|
|
Can you use the Community edition for commercial software development?
|
|
|
|
|
No, definitely not. It gets complicated if you try and find out if it is permitted to use it to do an add-on to a tool which helps creating data used in another tool that outputs a trajectory for a machine that produces a part of what your company is selling.
Some insight here[^]
Anyway, I am using it for private purposes, so I did not check the licensing thing.
/edit: I assumed commercial is not open source. If you sell open source software (Remember the guy who paid for WinRAR ? These people do exist !), you are allowed to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the responses on that link, it seems you can write commercial apps but not at the enterprise level. Example, Statefarm or McDonalds cannot do that, but Joe's Electrical Lighting can.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking at you Damian S.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
roach
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: roach
F***in' Whingin' Pom.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
For Elephants sake, Sir! What will become of your kid sister?
Life is too shor
|
|
|
|
|
Cheryl has a birthday, and she doesn't want to share it right away. (Otherwise, we have no challenge to solve.)
So she gives her friends Albert and Bernard a list of 10 possible birthday dates: May 15, May 16, May 19, June 17, June 18, July 14, July 16, August 14, August 15 or August 17.
Cheryl then tells Albert and Bernard separately the month and the day of her birthday respectively.
We then have a conversation which progresses as below -
Albert: I don't know when Cheryl's birthday is, but I know that Bernard doesn't know too.
Bernard: At first I don't [sic] know when Cheryl's birthday is, but I know now.
Albert: Then I also know when Cheryl's birthday is.
So, it is possible to deduce Cheryl's birthday?
I'm surprised this was not posted here before. Its become fairly popular recently.
Of course, try to solve it without searching on the internet! Not much fun otherwise.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
