The crucial idea is that what's pointed to by those variables is also cleaned up. When a POD pointer goes out of scope, it doesn't help you that the pointer is deallocated, you need what's pointed to to be deallocated.
Beyond pointers, it applies to many things that have a "C-style" API. Without RAII, anything that needs to be explicitly cleaned up needs to be monitored. For example, if you declare a pthread mutex, it doesn't help you that the mutex variable itself goes out of scope, because it's just a pointer and that will not clean up the actual mutex.
And as people have said, without RAII it's impossible to write exception-safe code.
I'd have to revisit the story to see just how that happened, but explosive decompression is a hell of a drug. When it's happened in the passenger portion of aircraft, seats have been ripped off the floor to which they're bolted. Pulling someone out of a loosely-fastened seat belt (even, possibly, a multi-point harness) isn't beyond contemplation.
The few times someone has been pulled out of a plane due to decompression has been because they were stood right under the panel that failed( Ahola 243 ) or have been sat right on top of the cargo door that failed (aa96 and Turkish 981 ). I'd love to know how decompression unbolted a seat.
As to your req: TWA Flight 800 incident reports claim that the pilot and 70% of the passengers were pulled from the fuselage following structural failure of the aircraft (the front 1/3 of the plane detached from the remainder following a fuel tank explosion). Several rows of seats were also detached.
Situation would have been massive structural failure and exposure of the aircraft interior to the jetstream and fireball, which is more than an explosive decompression, but it is a referenced case.
Specific mentions begin at about 20 minutes into the following video based on NTSB reports:
Acking your cite req. I don't have one handy, though a review of decomp cases should be reasonable feasible -- there are pretty comprehensive lists of aircraft accidents. And I'll admit not being positive of my information, though I do believe there are cases where a seat or seats have been ripped out.
"The aircraft's fuel gauges were inoperative because of an electronic fault which was indicated on the instrument panel and airplane logs (the pilots believed flight to be legal with this malfunction)."
Dudes, wtf? Unless Canadian regulations differ from US ones, you're not even allowed to fly a single-seater in day VFR without a fuel gauge.
it explains why they flew without a fuel gauge. tl;dr - they knew the gauge was broken, but regs allowed the flight if the maintenance crew did a manual sounding of the tanks and the measured fuel was enough. they sounded and measured, but converted incorrectly between pounds and kilos. I think the pilots were severely disciplined for that failure.
I think you're pushing it a bit there. If you exercise your privilege to operate below 500ft AGL, you'd better be sure the area is unpopulated. Since the unmanned aircraft are required to stay within LOS, one would argue that the area there is not unpopulated and hence you are required to maintain 500ft clearance.
As for "will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic patterns?", it seems unlikely that someone wouldn't notice the local air traffic pattern if it includes aircraft at < 500ft AGL.
To operate below 500ft AGL the area doesn't have to be unpopulated. As long as it is not a congested area (as in city center) and the pilot is stays 500 feet (distance) from any person, vehicle or structure that pilot is within legal regulations to operate below 500ft AGL.
I've only seen 1 legitimate use for a Keurig machine. My company's office used to be on the 9th floor of a very old building (built in 1914). The plumbing is subpar and our office had no sink, despite being otherwise very nice. Having a regular coffee maker would mean cleaning it in the only restroom on our floor, which was a women's room. So we got a keurig.
Exactly. We have no sink or restroom on our "floor." (It's a floor between the first and second floors of an old warehouse.) They have a Keurig and bring gallon jugs of water. To clean a regular coffee maker would mean walking down the stairs and halfway across the building.
Keurig coffee is terrible. It violates two of the most important principles of making good coffee: time and pressure. Making good coffee in 3 seconds with a ton of pressure that destroys the bean is impossible. 10 seconds of extraction at the pressure that Keurig does it at will only ever yield flavors of "burnt" and "chocolatey-ish-I-think?"
While I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate given that I don't like Keurig coffee much, your numbers are so far off that you're being kind of unfair. It takes about 35 seconds to brew an eight-ounce cup of coffee, not ten seconds (or three!), and AFAIK only uses about 1.5 bars of pressure, hardly enough to "destroy the bean." This isn't that far off from the speed and pressure that an Aeropress brews with, and it's really a fairly comparable method.
"But (nearly) everybody loves the Aeropress! It can't be comparable!"
I'd argue the Keurig's weak spot is not the brewing methodology, it's the coffee itself. The K-Cups are sealed with nitrogen and do their best to stay fresh, but no matter how many tricks you use to try and preserve the flavor of coffee that was ground three months before you brew it, it's going to take a massive quality hit -- and y weren't starting with beans that would bowl a coffee snob over in the first place. When I actually used the correct amount of fresh ground coffee from a good roaster, though, it produced a surprisingly good cup of coffee. And I've cut open a K-Cup and brewed the coffee within using a French Press; what came out tasted, well, a lot like what you'd expect out of a Keurig, just s slightly grittier.
(Then the pump broke and I bought a Chemex and lived happily ever after. The end.)
I actually don't like aeropress either. I found it convenient to use early on in my coffee obsession days but I find it has several flaws. The two biggest in my opinion are the filter actually being too good at filtering and the body of the aeropress dissipating heat poorly.
I use the Chemex when we have company over, it's the best combination of quantity and quality that I have found so far. As for one to two servings, I swear by the Kalita Wave
I do like the Aeropress, although it took me a while to decide that. My quibble with it was that I tend to brew twelve-ounce cups and it really doesn't seem to be that good at that. (And I think I know what you mean about the filter.)
I've heard good things about the Kalita Wave, but I'm not sure I want to add another coffee brewing device to the collection at this point. :)
Actually, by the time I put in my creamer and sugar it tastes damned good. The thing is, taste is completely subjective. I couldn't give a rat's about all the subtleties of coffee. Same for wine. I want something that tastes fine to my unsophisticated palate and I want it with minimal fuss.
This actually reminded me of a friend of my father. This friend was a chef at some over-the-top fancy (or in my book, prissy) restaurants in his heyday. Anyway he pretty much lost the ability to just eat and enjoy food because he would constantly judge it. If I recall, he would generally just eat some bread and some cured meat for most of his meals. I honestly imagine he would jump over a chance to have Soylent. My thought on the matter is that if I ever get my head that far up my ass that I can't enjoy something that tastes good because of some stupid ideal of what something "should" be, well then I've seriously screwed myself over.
Espresso machines are designed much differently and as accordingly they are several hundred to several thousand dollars. Really you're looking at $1000 and up for a decent espresso machine in my opinion. And don't even get me started on the amount of skill it requires to pull good espresso shots consistently. Between grind size, tamp, the bean and altitude you have a lot to deal with.
It's because it is also linked to temperature, the higher your pressure the higher your boiling point. It also effects how fast the fluid travels through the ground coffee which effects not just how strong it is but also can have an effect on the balance of what has diffused from the ground and various other characteristics.
There's a lot that can go into making a good cup of coffee. New Zealand (where I'm from) has one of the higher coffee shops per capita in the world (mostly non chain) and you may be surprised how much a coffee can change from barista to barista even using the same beans in the same shop. If you're spending the money every day on that little moment of luxury you can notice the difference. (Whether or not it's suffering from the same biases in experience as expensive wine can I'll leave for someone else to speak on).
Yes! The one with the tattoos always makes the best coffee. If 2 have tattoos, the grumpy one does it better. Once you do your own espresso for a while it become a ritual such that extraction can be very consistent.
> It is pretty obvious from the preceding sentences that this is an opinion ...
No, it was stated as though it were a fact that a currency requires the backing of a central authority. It's a testable proposition, and the fact that Bitcoin exists and functions as a currency, and the fact that the present Fed chairperson asserts that the government has no authority to regulate Bitcoin, is the needed counter-citation.
I didn't see it mentioned in this article, but the cable is actually very small. I read this older NASA study that said that for a carbon nanotube tether, an optimal cable would be a thin tape something like an inch across. That has pretty small cross section for being hit by a meteoroid.
On the other hand, a satellite a couple meters across has plenty of cross section with which to find the cable. Even if we take all those down (not in our lifetime), there is a lot of little stuff in orbit, and it would only take one.