I’m voting for this guy in November.
I’m voting for this guy in November.
$
I only ever use Michaelsoft Binbows.
According to the article, they’re going for multiple counts of money laundering and wire fraud with 20 years each.
Let’s not forget about HotHardware. They’re still carrying the torch of detailed hardware analysis as well my beloved NotebookCheck.
I’ve found that’s because their mice will go to sleep and upon first waking they’ll briefly use an onboard profile before switching to the G Hub profile. This is also why it might feel like it has a different DPI briefly or different light settings for just a flash. The only way to fix this is to use their totally separate OnboardMemoryManager software to change the onboard settings while running G Hub. It solved this issue for me and it’s infuriating that this isn’t built into G Hub…
According to the description, it’s just the sensor, not the latch. The microswitch has a lever like many do and that lever can become bent if damaged which would prevent it from warning the user if they failed to latch the hood. Most older cars just had a secondary latch so if you failed to latch it completely, at least the secondary one would catch it…
Although the problem is with the hood latch, as with many Tesla safety recalls, the problem can be fixed with an over-the-air software patch.
Why did he not push for this before the final months of his presidency? Why wait until the 11th hour?
By that time, all the games you bought now will be public domain.
There are manual releases on each door inside, but I’m surprised they don’t have them outside as well.
Reading more about it, I find that many only have manual releases on the front doors until recently and they have a connection point you’re meant to jump with power to unlock and open from the outside. I didn’t think anyone would be okay waiting for a jump to get their baby out, but then these people waited for firemen to break their window, so…
Maybe not skip them, but instead play something else over top of them like another video you like, a music segment, or cat videos.
I don’t know about you, but what I learned is we’ll build our own Youtube with blackjack and hookers.
It sounds like it’s their insurance company that is handling the thing and their first action was to fight instead of settle. If AA really wanted to send the right message to the public with this announced backtracking, they’d have announced that they’d just dropped their previous insurance company in favor of one that’s not completely insane.
They’re so brave.
What ever happened to doing this with UHF RFID? Getting the cost of the individual chips down was always just a matter of scaling production.
Human error is a far more reasonable explanation than complicated conspiracies, but I understand the thought. It really looked like that ship aimed for the bridge. Planning such a conspiracy would be far, far harder and more expensive to pull off than simple bridge failure, though.
Believe it or not, the insurance companies drive maritime safety requirements since they hate having to pay out for things like this. The classification societies that regulate and inspect ships to approve for insurance coverage have very strict and well thought out safety requirements that get better any time a new failure mode is discovered.
I personally think this one was human error in an emergency situation.
Theory: They lost primary electric service and began a slight drift to starboard. When they got backup power online, they began a crash reverse to slow down. This would hinder rudder control since the ship was still going forward and now just creating turbulence with the prop. Reverse would torque the stern to port, swinging the bow to starboard, as we saw. The bow thruster was offline due to the power issues.
Five comments down, maybe, but I’ll take what we can get.
In the US, Atari tried to sue someone who made an Asteroids clone back in 1981 and lost because Meteors, the clone had made some improvements on the idea of Asteroids (color, among other things). This cemented US legal precedent that you can’t sue people for “ripping off” games so long as they make some meaningful change to it and aren’t just making a direct knock-off.
This current case is in Japan, however, where the legal landscape is very different and companies need to be legally aggressive to maintain any rights to their IP from what I understand. I have no idea how that’s going to go down.