|
Realistic
1) Nobody is going to spend the time to craft an inverted wing.
2) As light as the box is the box will probably blow away anyway.
3) Without proper adult supervision my girl friend won't let me use a knife.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
Or your cellphone. What could possibly go wrong?
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely what could go wrong?
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
James Curran wrote: on the Jersey City boardwalk, overlooking the Hudson river
I was there a couple weekends ago! My gf and I took a nice evening stroll and enjoyed the nightscape after eating dinner at Amiya - Contemporary Indian Cuisine
|
|
|
|
|
The question is, "Is it more aerodynamically efficient or less?"
You can't say something is or is not "aerodynamic".
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
James Curran wrote: it's a bit windy...Have I made the box MORE aerodynamic, or LESS?
At least for me "a bit windy" means that box is going to go sailing regardless of what it looks like. Or at least it will start moving which will interrupt me as I grab for it.
Collapse it completely and then fold it up and stick it under your leg. It won't go anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My suggestion is that you remove this post and if you have a specific question, then put it in the red link above. At this point your post is going to be marked as spam by the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried liquid nitrogen powered spam squashing technique?
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is from the article 'Good vibrations for the future of computing' in the news:
Quote: With each transistor consuming electrical current and generating heat even when not being actively switched, and with transistors approaching their physical limits of miniaturization and efficiency, the search is on for alternative technology that will eventually replace the electrical transistor and take computing into the future.
This may just be someone's piece of propaganda, but the quoted part has been untrue for more than 40 years now. Modern processors wold melt away if there would be a current even when the transistors don't switch. That technology is called CMOS where the transistors are switched in pairs. One closes while the other opens up. This way there is only a small and brief current during the switching process.
I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand your use of the word "current".
|
|
|
|
|
A current is like a raisin, but the grape they come from (the Zante, or Corinth grape) is smaller - about 1\4 the size. Sultanas on the other hand come from a grape that doesn't darken when it dries.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Where does that leave prunes then?
|
|
|
|
|
But how much juice is consumed by a current?
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
[^]
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
That's your tech gap manifest right there.
|
|
|
|
|
That is incorrect. CMOS circuits still consume current, even when they are not switching. It's commonly referred to as leakage, and is well understood. There are many sources of leakage in CMOS circuits, but the most common is subthreshold leakage. Generally speaking, this leakage gets worse as technology gets smaller, but - in recent years - has been mitigated against with fin-FET technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I swept leakage under the rug, but the lion's share goes to switching and multiplies with the frequency and the number of transistors. And that ends up entirely as heat we must get rid of.
I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: And that ends up entirely as heat and cat videos we must get rid of
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
...exploring the msdb.dbo.sysschedules table in Sql Server, and one of the columns is called active_end_time of type int.
When I saw the definition, I assumed that it would represent the number of seconds in the day (from midnight). I was wrong (and surprised, bewildered, and downright annoyed) when presented with the reality of the situation.
The value returned was 235959 which far exceeds the number of seconds in a day (86400). In reality, it is a numeric representation of "23:59:59". WTF Microsoft!!!! What rocket scientist decided that this was a valid way to represent a time-of-freakin-day?!
Even worse, they don't use two-digit hours, so "30000" represents "3 am".
Also, "0" indicates midnight, so how do they represent 1 second past midnight? (I don't know because none of existing the job schedules have a time like that.)
EDIT =================
Out of curiosity, I added a job with a schedule that starts at 00:00:01, and the value stored in table is "1".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
modified 4-Oct-17 13:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I assumed that it would represent the number of seconds in the day (from midnight) I would have, too. It's odd they chose the format they have, but at least it's ordinal and documented[^].
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I created an extension method to parse it...
public static class ExtendTimeSpan
{
public static TimeSpan ParseFromFormattedInt(int value)
{
return new TimeSpan(0).ParseFromFormattedInt(value);
}
public static TimeSpan ParseFromFormattedInt(this TimeSpan span, int value)
{
TimeSpan result = new TimeSpan(0);
string timeString = value.ToString();
string padding = new String('0', 6 - timeString.Length);
timeString = ((timeString.Length < 6) ? string.Concat(padding, timeString) : timeString).Insert(4, ":").Insert(2,":");
try
{
result = TimeSpan.ParseExact(timeString, "g", CultureInfo.CurrentCulture);
}
catch (Exception)
{
}
return result;
}
}
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
/ravi
|
|
|
|