stop talking about pretty cure
i s2g if another precure fan joins a vc
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
<img src="https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/c71da4f7-828b-4f19-9c18-2e0045c9f9cb/dfm7fnk-37e472e3-279e-4002-bc1b-a0d5f5136c90.png/v1/
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
Stay on target... stay on target...
Military engineering as it was practiced during the middle period of the nineteenth century made a definite distinction between a ditch and a trench. To anyone not steeped in the jargon of the period the difference may seem remote; both were (and are, for that matter) extended excavations that might run from a few feet to an indefinite length across the landscape. But taken in the context of the period and subject the distinction between a ditch and a trench imparts quite a bit of information about particular types of field fortifications and
the expectations surrounding their design and construction. To the point: a ditch was defined as a linear excavation on the engaged or exterior side of a parapet or earth embankment intended to serve as both cover and obstacle. A trench, on the other hand, was defined as a linear excavation on the unengaged or interior side of a protective embankment.
It should perhaps be noted in passing that the ditch of a field work constructed during the nineteenth century can not by any stretch of accurate description be referred to as a moat. This happens with ugly frequency.
"Moat," as far as the art and science of fortification went, was an archaic term even during the nineteenth century and is quite a little anachronism now and would have been so in former times under current reference. Moats work for medieval castles and have their places, this just isn't one of them. There is, it should also be added, something of a structural and functional difference between a medieval castle's moat and the ditch of permanent and field fortifications constructed from the seventeenth to the middle of nineteenth centuries. An explanation of which is a bit beyond the scope of this definition.