All MCF blocks are well-formed XML. Given XML’s flexibility, a number of strategies could serve for expressing MCF structures in terms of elements and attributes; all would be essentially isomorphic. However, it seems likely that it will be common practice to use MCF to express a series of facts about some object, framed as arcs with that object as the source. Thus, the source is expressed as a container element, with a series of child elements each representing an arc with that source (i.e., property of that source.) The element type of the source element is the name of unit’s category. If the unit is an element of more than one category, the additional categories can be specified using typeOf property elements. The container element may be given a unique identifier, which is a string provided in the ID attribute of this container element. The element type of each of the child elements is the PropertyType associated with that arc. If the destination of the arc is a primitive type, it is represented as the content of the element.

We need to experience real feedback and try and fail in our user flow solutions to get better at making them. Feature prioritization: “I like the additional features you’ve added, but they might be secondary to the main functionality we’re aiming for. Can we make them less prominent? ” This feedback involves redesign, but you must ask follow-up questions like, “What do they mean by less prominent? ” Ask questions, and let your teammates explain their thinking. Engineers will usually be building your design. Because of this, they’ll be considering the practicalities of actualizing your concept. Technical feasibility: “The animations look great but might slow down the app. Can we find a more performance-efficient way to achieve the same effect? ” Then you’re just standing there, knowing nothing about performance efficiency. Ask your engineers about an example; they already have a solution in mind, a hundred percent. Responsiveness: “Have you considered how this design will adapt to different screen sizes? Where is the design for that?

According to the invention there is used a feeler which is normally held inoperative by a, weft thread, but when that thread [email protected] is urged into the warp 45 threads and by preventing change of shed of the warp threads causes a jam to actuate a stopmechanism, which may convenientiy be a warpstop mechanism of the type above described. In its simplest form the feeler consists of a 50 member having a hook or eye for engagement by the weft thread, and a rearwardly extending portion adapted to be engaged by the sheets of warps at the rear of the shuttle as these converge to change the shed after the shuttle. Owing to the 55 contact of these sheets of warpswith the rearward (Cl. 139-13) extension of the feeler and the relative motion between the warps and the feeler, there is a tendency for the feeler to be drawn rearwardly of the shuttle, a tendency which is overcome by the weft thread passing through the hook or eye on 5, the feeler.

L’histoire est beaucoup moins fixe qu’on, ne le pense ordinairement. Au XVe, même au commencement du XVIe siècle, il y avait encore dans la marche des êvênements en Russie une fluctuation telle qu’il n’êtait point dêcidê lequel des deux principes formant la vie populaire et politique aurait le dessus: le prince ou la commune, Moscou ou Novgorod. Novgorod, libre du joug mongol, grande et forte, mettant toujours les droits des communes au-dessus des droits des princes, citê habituêe à se croire souveraine, mêtropole ayant de vastes ramifications coloniales en Russie, Novgorod êtait riche par le commerce actif qu’elle entretenait avec les villes ansêatiques. Moscou, fidèle fief de ses princes, s’êlevant sur les ruines des anciennes villes par la grâce des Mongols, ayant une nationalitê exclusive, n’ayant jamais connu la vêritable libertê communale de la pêriode de Kiev, Moscou l’emporta; mais Novgorod aussi a eu des chances pour elle, ce qui explique la lutte acharnêe entre ces deux villes et les cruautês exercêes à Novgorod par Jean le Terrible.

Moscou fut le vêritable centre-de la Grande-Russie, ayant en son pouvoir, à de petites distances de cent cinquante à deux cents kilomètres, les villes de Tver, Vladimir, Iaroslaf, Riazan, Kalouga, Orel, et dans une pêriphêrie un peu plus êtendue, Novgorod, Kostroma, Voronèje, Koursk, Smolensk, Pskov et Kiev. La nêcessitê d’une centralisation êtait êvidente; sans elle on ne pouvait ni secouer le joug mongol, ni sauver l’unitê de l’Etat. Nous ne croyons pas cependant que l’absolutisme moscovite ait êtê le seul moyen de salut pour la Russie. Nous n’ignorons pas quelle place pitoyable occupent les hypothèses dans l’histoire, mais nous ne voyons pas de motif pour rejeter sans examen toutes les probabilitês en se renfermant dans les faits accomplis. Nous n’admettons nullement ce fatalisme qui voit une nêcessitê absolue dans les êvênements, idêe abstraite, thêorique, que la philosophie spêculative a importêe dans l’histoire comme dans la nature. Ce qui a êtê, a certainement eu des raisons d’être, mais cela ne veut nullement dire que toutes les autres combinaisons aient êtê impossibles; elles le sont devenues par la rêalisation de la chance la plus probable, c’est là tout ce qu’on peut admettre.