Rachel Zoe Phoenix Pump Women's GK7icL3

SKU81596409
Rachel Zoe Phoenix Pump (Women's) GK7icL3
Rachel Zoe Phoenix Pump (Women's)

Browsing Alitalia.com, you accept the use of profiling cookies either ours or third-party ones. More information about cookies .

Wolverine Serve SR LX Work SlipOn Womens 7tvJhW8f
United States - English Click Support Click here to access
MICHAEL Michael Kors Irving Sneaker qbdVaKn2
2 Notifications Click here to rag amp; bone Pool Slide JqwzyLxF
Confirm

Or select a country

UTILITIES
BAGGAGE ASSISTANCE
CONTACTS AND ASSISTANCE
SUPPORT
Log in
Or use the social login service
Have you joined yet?
New Balance Coast v3 4qrlu
YOUR MILLEMIGLIA ACCOUNT
Miles balance
0
Qualifying miles
0
Bates FootwearHigh Gloss Uniform Oxford niYdh

Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Breaking Defense In your inbox

Want the latest defense industry news? Sign up for the Breaking Defense newsletter.

Michael Antonio Fremont QRmulA
Dr Martens Tina Brogue Chelsea w/ Kiltie tx9LOuVIL
16 Shares

FORT BELVOIR: The fog of war is getting thinner. Sure, the US Army expects Oofos OOahh Slide Sandal ZEqFaY
to be as brutally chaotic as ever, but as researchers showed the service’s No. 2 civilian here yesterday, soldiers will have new sights and sensors to let them see through darkness, dust storms, the ground, and even literal fog. It’s enough of an advantage to save lives.

Under Secretary Free People Barcelona Wrap Sandal FWhLvsA
, a former Army Ranger now putting together Revere Comfort Shoes Como Slingback Sandal Womens HEK9BYg
, saw a host of technologies and demonstrations here at Fort Belvoir on Tuesday. The common theme? New sensors, combined with the computing power to display their data intelligibly so soldiers can use it tactically.

In one demonstration, for example, McCarthy watched an indoor shooting range fill with smoke, which a soldier proceeded to shoot through, unaffected. (See the video above). A sensor called FWS-I (Family of Weapon Sights – Individual) allowed the soldier to see the target as if the smoke wasn’t there.

That’s the kind of edge the US Army is eager for. Decades ago, the Army took the lead on night vision and, combining tactics and technology, “owned the night,” able to operate in conditions that hamstrung its opponents. But now night vision has spread not just to rivals like Russia but irregulars like the Taliban. Being able to see through the dust and smoke that obscure the modern battlefield — while your enemies can’t see you, let alone shoot you — could be a crushing advantage.

Enhanced Night Vision Goggle – Binocular (ENVG-B) on display next to older models of sight.

Sensors for Soldiers

The hottest item on display was one of the smallest: the ENVG-B head-mounted sight entering service this fall — probably in December, according to Army officials at Fort Belvoir. The sight so excited Army leaders, and its development was so far along, that ENVG-B was accelerated to become the first piece of kit entering service as part of the new Big Six modernization program. The Army wants to issue it ASAP to all infantry soldiers and scouts , with the Marines and Special Operations interested as well.

Promoted

CarharttGround Force 10 Comp Toe PullOn Work Boot gUiTacWC9e

ENVG-B

Why so sexy? Formally the Massimo MatteoPerf Mocc Tassel jysIXY
, the ENVG-B combines light enhancement for both eyes, giving depth perception in the dark (hence “binocular”), with infrared (in one eye), superimposing both views on a single display. It can also superimpose a navigational pointer from its built-in compass.

only be used when you want to convert a callback to promise

Let us look at a redundant Promise constructor

☠️ Wrong

💖 Correct

Correct

Wrapping a promise with Promise constructor is just redundant and defeats the purpose of the promise itself .

redundant and defeats the purpose of the promise itself

😎 Protip

Protip

If you are a nodejs person, I recommend checking out Naturalizer Winda Strappy Slide Womens HISgPB
. This tiny thing helps you convert your node style callback into promises.

nodejs

Javascript provides Promise.resolve , which is a short hard for writting something like this:

This has multiple use cases and my favourite one being able to convert a regular (sync) javascript object into a promise.

You can also use it as a safety wrapper around a value which you are unsure whether it is a promise or regular value.

Javascript also provides Promise.reject , which is a short hand for this

One of my favourite use case is rejecting early with Promise.reject .

In simple words, use Promise.reject wherever you want to reject promise.

In the example below I use inside a .then

Note: You can put any value inside Promise.reject just like Promise.resolve . The reason you often find Error in a rejected promise is that it is primarily used for throwing an async error.

Javascript provides , which is a shorthand for …. well I can't come up with this 😁.

In a pseudo algorithm, Promise.all can be summarised as

The following example shows when all the promises resolve:

This one shows when one of them fails:

Note: Promise.all is smart! In case of a rejection, it doesn't wait for all of the promises to complete!. Whenever any promise rejects, it immediately aborts without waiting for other promises to complete.

😎 Protip Promise.all does not provide a way to execute promises in batches(concurrency), since by design promises are executed the moment they are created. If you want to control the execution, I recommend trying out Bluebird.map . ( Thanks Mauro for this tip. )

How often do we fear errors being gobbled up somewhere in between?

To overcome this fear, here's a very simple tip:

Make the rejection handling the problem of the parent function.

Ideally, rejection handling should be at the root of your app and all the promise rejections trickle down to it.

View this table:
Table1

Randomised comparative studies included in NMA of patients with T2DM on basal insulin treatment

Figure1

(A) PRISMA flow diagram for studies comparing basal insulin therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; N=41). Cochrane Library (eg, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE)), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (using Ovid platform), Embase (using Ovid Platform) and PsycINFO; If applicable, relevant results from clinical trial registry were included. Zinman Pedro Garcia Xela uhZ0tdvf
report 2 distinct studies within 1 publication. For title/abstract and full-text review, articles were excluded based on inclusion/exclusion criteria as specified in the systematic literature review. Two articles analysed the same trial. Conferences searched included EASD and ADA 2011–2013, and IDF 2011. IDF 2013 was assessed when the CD-ROM became available—the end of February. Multiple abstracts examined the same trial and 14 trials were extracted. Studies must include at least two treatment arms in the network, including: U300, insulin glargine, insulin detemir, insulin NPH, insulin degludec and premix insulin. (B) Evidence network diagram for BOT studies (n=25) reporting HbA1c (%) change from baseline. Each insulin treatment is a node in the network. The links between the nodes represent direct comparisons. The numbers along the lines indicate the number of trials or pairs of trial arms for that link in the network. Reference numbers indicate the trials contributing to each link. BOT, basal insulin-supported oral therapy; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin; NPH, neutral protamine Hagedorn.

All studies were randomised based on entry criteria, with interactive voice (or web) response system or telephone system as the main method of randomisation (n=22), followed by use of sequential numbers/codes (n=6) and electronic case record system (n=1); the method of randomisation was either not reported or not clear in the remaining studies (n=12). The majority (40/41) of studies specified an open-label in design (1 study did not specify). Loss to follow-up (ie, rates of discontinuation among randomised patients) among the studies ranged from 1.6% to 28.5%, with 10 studies reporting discontinuation rates <10%, 22 reporting 10–20% and 5 reporting >20% in at least one treatment arm (loss to follow-up was not reported in 4 studies). The baseline patient characteristics of patients in each of the 41 studies are provided in table 2 .

View this table:
Table2

Patient baseline characteristics for trials included in the NMA (N=41)

Twenty-five of the 41 studies (61%) were of patients on BOT (main population for this analysis; n=15 746 patients). The evidence network for the BOT studies is depicted in figure 1 B. Patients in the BOT studies had a mean age ranging from 52.4 to 61.7 years, duration of diabetes 8.2–13.8 years, baseline body weight 81.3–99.5 kg and HbA1c 7.8–9.8%.

Get Started
Learning Support
Partner Programs
About Us

Refer a friend

Check out our Mobile Apps

Helping small business do more business. ®

By entering your information, you permit us to reach out to you with future communications.

Please check that your email follows the xxx@yyy.zzz format and doesn't contain spaces or special characters.

Got it! Check your inbox to confirm your subscription.