Oblivion and FO are just killing people (even the same, generic goblin or raider) over and over. The main difference is the individual stories are small. Sure, there's the big, overall, plot, but most of the quests are little things (and independent of the main plotline) that you can do in an hour or so. They're not so much monolithic games as they are a family of related games with the same setting.
The balance between cut scenes/dialog and action is important, too. 5 hours of movie embedded in 250 hours of hacking is a pretty good hack-and-slash. 5 hours of movie embedded in 25 hours (eg, Mass Effect, Crysis) is kinda tedious.
““I actually had hopes for Obama, [...] but power is incredibly destructive,” Drake said. “It’s a weird, pathological thing. I also think the intelligence community coöpted Obama, because he’s rather naïve about national security. He’s accepted the fear and secrecy. We’re in a scary space in this country.”
Research is a money game, if your research is correct even if its stupid to most people, you will get a grant for the next project easier....
It's slightly different than that. The (national) funding agencies have to justify their budgets to Congress. The best way to justify their budgets is to show results. The best way to show results is to fund studies that have a high probability of success - that have substantial support from existing literature, pilot experiments, etc. So, funding agencies are reluctant to support high-risk projects whose outcome is not pre-determined. So, your successful scientist will write a grant whose outcome is 80% known and try to squeeze in a few high risk pilot experiments on the side. This results in most science being incremental, at best, and just a tiny bit being truly innovative. The alternative support structure, where you just give research dollars to any bloke with a PhD, regardless of whether he has a good, well-supported idea, turns out to be even less efficient.
I think the fact that bananas aren't being hysterically shunned shows that people are not idiots.
And I think the main reason people don't shun bananas is because they're "natural" and Nature would not make anything bad for you. I think people are incapable of understanding how much radiation is in a banana, or of relating the 350 pCi activity to the 100 nSv estimated dose. I think they're completely incapable of distinguishing among the 100 nSv banana dose, the 40 uSv estimated dose in Tokyo due to Fukushima, the 2 mSv/hr peak dose rate at the Fukushima boundary, the 50 mSv/year US occupational dose, and the 1 Sv dose that begins to show acute symptoms.
If you extract the potassium from the banana and put it in a little 350 pCi grain of sand, people will freak out over the grain of sand.
Yes, there were massively biased newspapers but never like the crazy conspiracy theory websites.
No, crazy conspiracy theory publications have also always existed. The trouble for them was that it costs a lot more money to publish and distribute a physical newsletter, especially one that comes out frequently enough to be considered a newsletter, than it does to operate a blog. So, the old crackpot publications were very hard for most of the population to find...you had to be a member of the UFO Watcher's Society, the Flat Earth Society, or the KKK to see their pulp. Now, it's indexed and cached in Google.
That's his point. Terrorists and criminals desecrate bodies. Evil people desecrate bodies. If the US really wants to show itself to be on the side of Good and Right, then the US needs to hold itself to standards of decency. If the US goes around desecrating the enemy just because the enemy did it to us once, then the rest of the world will see no difference between the two.
You tell the good guys from the bad guys because the good guys have principles. They're not willing to resort to any means necessary in pursuit of their ends. Symbolic desecration of vanquished or captured foes serves only to strengthen the resolve of remaining foes and to turn neutral parties in favor of the foes.
NIH started as a means to support fundamental biomedical research. It expanded from $4M in 1947 to 100M in 1957 and $1B in 1974 and $30B today. It became the way that biomedical research is funded, and dwarfs the NSF budget of $7B. Everybody wanted a piece of that pie, but it turns out to be tied up with political strings. Universities came to depend on research money that often exceed student tuition and state grants. But it's hard to justify basic science to congress - that's the whole reason NSF's budget is so much smaller than NIH - so NIH has been progressively steered towards clinical, applied, "translational" research. Other branches of science have been pushed in that direction, too, as they struggle to justify their existence next to curing heart disease and making the lame walk.
The argument for Government funded basic science used to be that we couldn't know what would come out of it, but that the simple process of discovery would result in unforeseen benefits. Society couldn't trust commercial enterprises to take such altruistic risks (although some of them did consider support of long-term, fundamental research part of good corporate citizenship or part of their own 20 year success program). Government now, at least in the US, has little foresight or capacity for long term planning. If the corporate attention span is one fiscal quarter, then the government attention span is one election cycle. So, we've sacrificed our long-term prospects for short term reward.
If they're somehow locked down to make them only useful for the curriculum, I get it. If they're just off the shelf ipads, I don't get it.
I don't get it either way. All you can do with an iPad is consume information. It has nothing to do with learning "technology" or "computers." Maybe they think the $400 iPad + $30 e-textbooks is a good substitute for $50 textbooks. More likely, they've confused "using a computer" with computer literacy or "doing facebook" with developing web content/applications.
I could understand lame technology decisions back in my day, when few of the teachers had themselves ever seen a computer, much less had any direct experience with them. Teachers and administrators today should have grown up in the 80s, even 90s. These people had the opportunity to see computers as something other than a typewriter with a better delete function, as something with potential limited only by your own imagination and initiative. The next generation, growing up in the 00s, is going to be stuck viewing computers like cars - you get what a manufacturer offers and take it to someone if it doesn't do quite what you want - but I was really hoping there would be a window where kids could get a real technical introduction in school.
If we let them stay here, as you suggest, why would they hire Americans when they could hire more people from their home country instead, and bring them over (because we just made it easier for them to stay, as you suggested)?
If "They" come to America, then they become Americans, and America improves. That used to be our strength - where the Germans and the Japanese had to breed a better generation, America could cherry pick from the rest of the world.
Please do not tell me that your entire view of world politics is based on whether they have some sort of public health option or not.
From a social conservative/liberal perspective - this thread is about whether the world is more leftist than the US - social services provided by the government are a pretty good indicator. England, for example, uses "Welfare State" proudly to indicate that they take care of the old and infirm. A government that guarantees equal rights to all, including basic access to food, shelter, education, and health care for its people is socially liberal (US sense), egalitarian, or left-wing. A government that expects its population to find their own food, find individual means for education, and individual health care implicitly accepts that some individuals will be advantaged, and that those advantages will generally be passed from parent to child, conserving the status quo, or being right wing.
How exactly is it false advertising to tell users exactly how much bandwidth they can use and then allow them to use that amount of bandwidth?
I think most of us pedants would be happier if, instead of saying "15 Mbps with a 250GB cap," they would say "15 Mbps burst and 750 kbps sustained." When I started on the internet and used it for email, web surfing, etc, it was a reasonable assumption that I'd use the internet less than 5% of the time. Now that I may use it to watch video and play games, as well as read/., an hour a day doesn't seem like very much.
All I see is an upward trend from FY01 to FY08 then it holds steady from FY08 to FY10. Absolutely NO downward trend. So where did your evidence of a downward trend come from originally? Oh yea that that chart from cbo.gov that ends at 2001. BTW as I mentioned before that chart does not include the war operations.
I just want to make sure you remember that before 2001, we were not at war in Afghanistan, and before 2003 we were not at war in Iraq. Likewise, the numbers you list are not inflation adjusted, which is one of the errors Solandri was highlighting. There's no question that a certain war monger managed to expand military spending. For 15 years before that (including both Dem and Rep administrations), DoD spending decreased in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP. As a fraction of the total federal budget, defense spending has been declining since 1955, and especially since Medicare was started in 1965. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png
If there's anything the Republican party will align behind, it's putting overreaching socially invasive powers in the hands of a Supreme Leader.
Man, I wish I could tell whether this is sarcasm or not. The Republican dogmas, of course, are individual freedom & responsibility and limited government. The Republican majorities in House and Senate were instrumental in getting PATRIOT passed in the first place (granted, with plenty of Democratic support) and getting it re-upped in 2006. Of all the legislative action the Republican minority was able to quash in 2009, re-upping PATRIOT wasn't one they even tried.
So, social invasion seems to be just fine, as long as the power is surveillance without oversight, the supreme leader is a member of law enforcement, and the stated goal is protection of life and property. But if the social power is to provide a service ubiquitous in the rest of the world, led by physician supervised by insurance companies, and the stated goal is protection of life and health, then that's over the line. Seems to me that the Reps, like the Dems, can get behind overreaching, socially invasive power any time the Leader happens to be their guy.
For most vaccination requirements, anyone born prior to January 1, 1957, does not need to provide proof of immunity for measles, mumps, and rubella. This date was selected because the majority of people born prior to 1957 developed immunity against measles and mumps from natural infection due to widespread disease.
The modern death rate from measles in under 0.1%, but in poor countries may be as high as 10% ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712354/ ). This is the rate for people who actually get the disease and is similar to the death rate from seasonal flu. So, the old guy, born before 1957, with all of his friends having had measles, should have lost somewhere around 1% of his childhood friends to measles. I'm not surprised he can't think of anyone who _died_ of measles.
It's also striking that (developed world) people born after 1970 can't generally think of anyone who's even _had_ measles, let alone died from it. What a great change in a decade.
When I need a lawyer, I want one the knows the law and can council me on what and what not to do, negotiate with other lawyers, and skillfully represent me in court if court if necessary.
Sounds like a lawyer is only good to the extent that he keeps other lawyers away from you. If you get rid of all the lawyers, then there's no need for a defensive lawyer-shield lawyer.
Right. The players will hit the ball, then watch carefully and verify its path, do some quick back-of-the-envelope calculus to verify the fielders' maximum speeds,[...]
Or, they'll just run, and figure out what's best as they go.
Those are the same thing. Brains are smart and very good at prediction, especially given the training a pro ball-player goes through. It's 3 seconds to first base - that's a lot of time to predict and adapt. Ball players do it intuitively; the physicists have just quantified it (and probably failed to account for a dozen parameters that a ball player's brain will accommodate without their conscious awareness.
I ask because I know now that I've worked for a major international oil company for several years no one is ever going to be interested in what uni I went to or what my marks were, but they sure as hell were when I first started.
I suspect this is the single most useful result of college: access to better starting positions. A college degree stands, not for work experience, but for trainability and ambition. You put a college degree as a requirement for an entry level position as a filter because it would be too much effort to scan through all of the applications from people who couldn't master high school on the off chance that buried within that pool is one guy with skills and experience, but desperate enough to apply for an entry-level position.
Without the degree, a kid is likely to get stuck in an unskilled or menial position, and his only chance for advancement is to be 'noticed' by higher-ups during internal expansion, or to leverage his experience into a new company. It takes ambition to move up the corporate ladder. Why would an ambitious person forgo college, choose a more difficult starting position, and choose to leave a distinct void in his resume?
The point is: you can be wildly successful with or without a degree. You can be a fuck-up with or without a degree. Five or ten years down the line, your performance will speak for itself. To an employer looking at 100 resumes from kids with no experience, it's better to play the odds and take someone from the degreed pool who's shown at least a modicum of gumption.
More like a bankrupt treasury.
I give zero credit to the 24 hour propaganda radio.
I think 24 hour propaganda radio had a lot to do with driving the treasury into bankruptcy. Western radio, TV, and film showing the technological and social advances made in the west provided a lot of the pressure for the soviet block to push their own development and at least to maintain the appearance of a dominant military in an international version of Keep Up With the Joneses.
In the absence of Western propaganda, the internal soviet propaganda could just spout the latest triumphs of the glorious workers' state and not have to push the crumbling (and shattered, after WWII) economy to out-do the US's latest military wonder.
"If you're watching a show and you decide to fast forward, how do you do that with a mouse?"
God, can't you read?! I specifically addressed that. You use the scroll bar feature on the bottom of Media Player Classic.
Possibly, you're marked troll because every response begins by insulting the other person in the conversation. Your method of fast-forwarding requires to sit up, grab the mouse or place it on a mouseable surface, move it to expose the Media Player Classic interface, and twiddle the scroll bar. The remote method requires to press a button on a device that's likely already in your hand.
"Most consumers use remotes because it's rather simplified."
I've already explained how using a mouse is more simple. I can double click an icon on my "desktop" it opens and I have access to hundreds of movies. I then use the scroll wheel to find the one I want, double click it, and I'm watching. I can quickly skip through using the scroll bar on the button and not have to waste time fast forwarding or rewinding.
Your use of "More Simple" seems to involve a lot of different clicks, mouse moves, and scrolling. Some people consider "simple" to mean press "Enter" and "Down" until you get what you want. "fast" and "simple" are not the same. In fact, they're often antagonistic.
Can wireless-N handle traffic fast enough to be able to send HD content around the house?
In my experience: one stream only. I had trouble when both client and server were wireless, but if either had a wired connection to the WAP, it went fine. This suggests collisions, and it might be that a better WAP would handle wireless all around.
While I certainly don't agree with the Paris theater burning fiasco, I also don't follow that the Bible encourages such action, if read properly.
And there's the basic problem. Most Muslims will tell you that the Koran, if read properly, does not encourage such action. Most Muslims believe their faith teaches tolerance and peaceful coexistence with other faiths. It's a relative minority of Muslims who believe the Koran calls on them to blow up infidels, in exactly the same way it is a minority of Christians who believe the Bible calls on them to blow up abortion clinics. Peaceful muslims aren't interesting, though, any more than the 330,000 US churches who will not be burning Korans on Saturday are interesting.
Now that you've established I am clueless, go away and read some of the genuinely insightful comments on this thread and you'll see precisely why I asked Slashdot.
In all fairness, your sig:
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
does not make you look like a control center expert.
Exactly. This is like requiring a business license for a lemonade stand. Your kid's lemonade stand probably doesn't need a license, but Daddy's Lemonade does. If this blogger made enough money from her blog to interest the IRS, then a business license may be appropriate.
Do you think Doritos would be allowed to sell bags as "up to a pound" when they averaged 9oz and some had quite a bit less? The big problem is it's one way.
Businesses do "Free while supplies last" or "All you can eat while supplies last" deals pretty regularly. Bandwidth is more like all-you-can-eat than a bad of Doritos. Your access to bandwidth may be transiently limited by other people sharing your wires anywhere between you and and the server. Your ISP can't reasonably be expected to control any of their upstream providers, much less the ISP of the server, or the quality of wiring inside your home. If the guy in front of you takes the last egg roll from the all-you-can-eat buffet, then you don't get an egg roll. If someone's Brittney Spears torrent fills the upstream pipe, then you don't get your 6.7 Mbps.
If you want guaranteed bandwidth, pay for guaranteed bandwidth. If you're only willing to pay for as-much-as-you-get, then take what you get. Personally, if an ISP says "up to," I expect that means "under extremely improbable, optimal conditions".
When one fights cultural enemies who don't play by the rules, it becomes reasonable to abandon the rules which only exist for ones own benefit (expectation of reciprocity).
I expect my government to play by its rules. There are only two things that separate the US from "the terrorists": the rules those groups adhere to and the money they have available. If the US decides we should play by whatever rules "the enemy" plays by, then the only thing separating us from those enemies is money, and the US won't always be the richest country on the planet. I don't want to have to follow the richest country's rules; I want to follow rules I agree with. The US needs to stop fucking around with other countries' governments and stick with leading by example.
Slashdot Mirror
Oblivion and FO are just killing people (even the same, generic goblin or raider) over and over. The main difference is the individual stories are small. Sure, there's the big, overall, plot, but most of the quests are little things (and independent of the main plotline) that you can do in an hour or so. They're not so much monolithic games as they are a family of related games with the same setting.
The balance between cut scenes/dialog and action is important, too. 5 hours of movie embedded in 250 hours of hacking is a pretty good hack-and-slash. 5 hours of movie embedded in 25 hours (eg, Mass Effect, Crysis) is kinda tedious.
Most telling quote in that article:
““I actually had hopes for Obama, [...] but power is incredibly destructive,” Drake said. “It’s a weird, pathological thing. I also think the intelligence community coöpted Obama, because he’s rather naïve about national security. He’s accepted the fear and secrecy. We’re in a scary space in this country.”
Seems to pretty well sum things up.
Research is a money game, if your research is correct even if its stupid to most people, you will get a grant for the next project easier....
It's slightly different than that. The (national) funding agencies have to justify their budgets to Congress. The best way to justify their budgets is to show results. The best way to show results is to fund studies that have a high probability of success - that have substantial support from existing literature, pilot experiments, etc. So, funding agencies are reluctant to support high-risk projects whose outcome is not pre-determined. So, your successful scientist will write a grant whose outcome is 80% known and try to squeeze in a few high risk pilot experiments on the side. This results in most science being incremental, at best, and just a tiny bit being truly innovative. The alternative support structure, where you just give research dollars to any bloke with a PhD, regardless of whether he has a good, well-supported idea, turns out to be even less efficient.
I think the fact that bananas aren't being hysterically shunned shows that people are not idiots.
And I think the main reason people don't shun bananas is because they're "natural" and Nature would not make anything bad for you. I think people are incapable of understanding how much radiation is in a banana, or of relating the 350 pCi activity to the 100 nSv estimated dose. I think they're completely incapable of distinguishing among the 100 nSv banana dose, the 40 uSv estimated dose in Tokyo due to Fukushima, the 2 mSv/hr peak dose rate at the Fukushima boundary, the 50 mSv/year US occupational dose, and the 1 Sv dose that begins to show acute symptoms.
If you extract the potassium from the banana and put it in a little 350 pCi grain of sand, people will freak out over the grain of sand.
Yes, there were massively biased newspapers but never like the crazy conspiracy theory websites.
No, crazy conspiracy theory publications have also always existed. The trouble for them was that it costs a lot more money to publish and distribute a physical newsletter, especially one that comes out frequently enough to be considered a newsletter, than it does to operate a blog. So, the old crackpot publications were very hard for most of the population to find...you had to be a member of the UFO Watcher's Society, the Flat Earth Society, or the KKK to see their pulp. Now, it's indexed and cached in Google.
That's his point. Terrorists and criminals desecrate bodies. Evil people desecrate bodies. If the US really wants to show itself to be on the side of Good and Right, then the US needs to hold itself to standards of decency. If the US goes around desecrating the enemy just because the enemy did it to us once, then the rest of the world will see no difference between the two.
You tell the good guys from the bad guys because the good guys have principles. They're not willing to resort to any means necessary in pursuit of their ends. Symbolic desecration of vanquished or captured foes serves only to strengthen the resolve of remaining foes and to turn neutral parties in favor of the foes.
I never figured out why things went wrong
NIH started as a means to support fundamental biomedical research. It expanded from $4M in 1947 to 100M in 1957 and $1B in 1974 and $30B today. It became the way that biomedical research is funded, and dwarfs the NSF budget of $7B. Everybody wanted a piece of that pie, but it turns out to be tied up with political strings. Universities came to depend on research money that often exceed student tuition and state grants. But it's hard to justify basic science to congress - that's the whole reason NSF's budget is so much smaller than NIH - so NIH has been progressively steered towards clinical, applied, "translational" research. Other branches of science have been pushed in that direction, too, as they struggle to justify their existence next to curing heart disease and making the lame walk.
The argument for Government funded basic science used to be that we couldn't know what would come out of it, but that the simple process of discovery would result in unforeseen benefits. Society couldn't trust commercial enterprises to take such altruistic risks (although some of them did consider support of long-term, fundamental research part of good corporate citizenship or part of their own 20 year success program). Government now, at least in the US, has little foresight or capacity for long term planning. If the corporate attention span is one fiscal quarter, then the government attention span is one election cycle. So, we've sacrificed our long-term prospects for short term reward.
Don't eat the marshmallow yet.
If they're somehow locked down to make them only useful for the curriculum, I get it. If they're just off the shelf ipads, I don't get it.
I don't get it either way. All you can do with an iPad is consume information. It has nothing to do with learning "technology" or "computers." Maybe they think the $400 iPad + $30 e-textbooks is a good substitute for $50 textbooks. More likely, they've confused "using a computer" with computer literacy or "doing facebook" with developing web content/applications.
I could understand lame technology decisions back in my day, when few of the teachers had themselves ever seen a computer, much less had any direct experience with them. Teachers and administrators today should have grown up in the 80s, even 90s. These people had the opportunity to see computers as something other than a typewriter with a better delete function, as something with potential limited only by your own imagination and initiative. The next generation, growing up in the 00s, is going to be stuck viewing computers like cars - you get what a manufacturer offers and take it to someone if it doesn't do quite what you want - but I was really hoping there would be a window where kids could get a real technical introduction in school.
If we let them stay here, as you suggest, why would they hire Americans when they could hire more people from their home country instead, and bring them over (because we just made it easier for them to stay, as you suggested)?
If "They" come to America, then they become Americans, and America improves. That used to be our strength - where the Germans and the Japanese had to breed a better generation, America could cherry pick from the rest of the world.
Please do not tell me that your entire view of world politics is based on whether they have some sort of public health option or not.
From a social conservative/liberal perspective - this thread is about whether the world is more leftist than the US - social services provided by the government are a pretty good indicator. England, for example, uses "Welfare State" proudly to indicate that they take care of the old and infirm. A government that guarantees equal rights to all, including basic access to food, shelter, education, and health care for its people is socially liberal (US sense), egalitarian, or left-wing. A government that expects its population to find their own food, find individual means for education, and individual health care implicitly accepts that some individuals will be advantaged, and that those advantages will generally be passed from parent to child, conserving the status quo, or being right wing.
How exactly is it false advertising to tell users exactly how much bandwidth they can use and then allow them to use that amount of bandwidth?
I think most of us pedants would be happier if, instead of saying "15 Mbps with a 250GB cap," they would say "15 Mbps burst and 750 kbps sustained." When I started on the internet and used it for email, web surfing, etc, it was a reasonable assumption that I'd use the internet less than 5% of the time. Now that I may use it to watch video and play games, as well as read /., an hour a day doesn't seem like very much.
All I see is an upward trend from FY01 to FY08 then it holds steady from FY08 to FY10. Absolutely NO downward trend. So where did your evidence of a downward trend come from originally? Oh yea that that chart from cbo.gov that ends at 2001. BTW as I mentioned before that chart does not include the war operations.
I just want to make sure you remember that before 2001, we were not at war in Afghanistan, and before 2003 we were not at war in Iraq. Likewise, the numbers you list are not inflation adjusted, which is one of the errors Solandri was highlighting. There's no question that a certain war monger managed to expand military spending. For 15 years before that (including both Dem and Rep administrations), DoD spending decreased in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP. As a fraction of the total federal budget, defense spending has been declining since 1955, and especially since Medicare was started in 1965. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png
If there's anything the Republican party will align behind, it's putting overreaching socially invasive powers in the hands of a Supreme Leader.
Man, I wish I could tell whether this is sarcasm or not. The Republican dogmas, of course, are individual freedom & responsibility and limited government. The Republican majorities in House and Senate were instrumental in getting PATRIOT passed in the first place (granted, with plenty of Democratic support) and getting it re-upped in 2006. Of all the legislative action the Republican minority was able to quash in 2009, re-upping PATRIOT wasn't one they even tried.
So, social invasion seems to be just fine, as long as the power is surveillance without oversight, the supreme leader is a member of law enforcement, and the stated goal is protection of life and property. But if the social power is to provide a service ubiquitous in the rest of the world, led by physician supervised by insurance companies, and the stated goal is protection of life and health, then that's over the line. Seems to me that the Reps, like the Dems, can get behind overreaching, socially invasive power any time the Leader happens to be their guy.
For most vaccination requirements, anyone born prior to January 1, 1957, does not need to provide proof of immunity for measles, mumps, and rubella. This date was selected because the majority of people born prior to 1957 developed immunity against measles and mumps from natural infection due to widespread disease.
The modern death rate from measles in under 0.1%, but in poor countries may be as high as 10% ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712354/ ). This is the rate for people who actually get the disease and is similar to the death rate from seasonal flu. So, the old guy, born before 1957, with all of his friends having had measles, should have lost somewhere around 1% of his childhood friends to measles. I'm not surprised he can't think of anyone who _died_ of measles.
It's also striking that (developed world) people born after 1970 can't generally think of anyone who's even _had_ measles, let alone died from it. What a great change in a decade.
When I need a lawyer, I want one the knows the law and can council me on what and what not to do, negotiate with other lawyers, and skillfully represent me in court if court if necessary.
Sounds like a lawyer is only good to the extent that he keeps other lawyers away from you. If you get rid of all the lawyers, then there's no need for a defensive lawyer-shield lawyer.
Right. The players will hit the ball, then watch carefully and verify its path, do some quick back-of-the-envelope calculus to verify the fielders' maximum speeds,[...]
Or, they'll just run, and figure out what's best as they go.
Those are the same thing. Brains are smart and very good at prediction, especially given the training a pro ball-player goes through. It's 3 seconds to first base - that's a lot of time to predict and adapt. Ball players do it intuitively; the physicists have just quantified it (and probably failed to account for a dozen parameters that a ball player's brain will accommodate without their conscious awareness.
I ask because I know now that I've worked for a major international oil company for several years no one is ever going to be interested in what uni I went to or what my marks were, but they sure as hell were when I first started.
I suspect this is the single most useful result of college: access to better starting positions. A college degree stands, not for work experience, but for trainability and ambition. You put a college degree as a requirement for an entry level position as a filter because it would be too much effort to scan through all of the applications from people who couldn't master high school on the off chance that buried within that pool is one guy with skills and experience, but desperate enough to apply for an entry-level position.
Without the degree, a kid is likely to get stuck in an unskilled or menial position, and his only chance for advancement is to be 'noticed' by higher-ups during internal expansion, or to leverage his experience into a new company. It takes ambition to move up the corporate ladder. Why would an ambitious person forgo college, choose a more difficult starting position, and choose to leave a distinct void in his resume?
The point is: you can be wildly successful with or without a degree. You can be a fuck-up with or without a degree. Five or ten years down the line, your performance will speak for itself. To an employer looking at 100 resumes from kids with no experience, it's better to play the odds and take someone from the degreed pool who's shown at least a modicum of gumption.
More like a bankrupt treasury.
I give zero credit to the 24 hour propaganda radio.
I think 24 hour propaganda radio had a lot to do with driving the treasury into bankruptcy. Western radio, TV, and film showing the technological and social advances made in the west provided a lot of the pressure for the soviet block to push their own development and at least to maintain the appearance of a dominant military in an international version of Keep Up With the Joneses.
In the absence of Western propaganda, the internal soviet propaganda could just spout the latest triumphs of the glorious workers' state and not have to push the crumbling (and shattered, after WWII) economy to out-do the US's latest military wonder.
"If you're watching a show and you decide to fast forward, how do you do that with a mouse?"
God, can't you read?! I specifically addressed that. You use the scroll bar feature on the bottom of Media Player Classic.
Possibly, you're marked troll because every response begins by insulting the other person in the conversation. Your method of fast-forwarding requires to sit up, grab the mouse or place it on a mouseable surface, move it to expose the Media Player Classic interface, and twiddle the scroll bar. The remote method requires to press a button on a device that's likely already in your hand.
"Most consumers use remotes because it's rather simplified."
I've already explained how using a mouse is more simple. I can double click an icon on my "desktop" it opens and I have access to hundreds of movies. I then use the scroll wheel to find the one I want, double click it, and I'm watching. I can quickly skip through using the scroll bar on the button and not have to waste time fast forwarding or rewinding.
Your use of "More Simple" seems to involve a lot of different clicks, mouse moves, and scrolling. Some people consider "simple" to mean press "Enter" and "Down" until you get what you want. "fast" and "simple" are not the same. In fact, they're often antagonistic.
Can wireless-N handle traffic fast enough to be able to send HD content around the house?
In my experience: one stream only. I had trouble when both client and server were wireless, but if either had a wired connection to the WAP, it went fine. This suggests collisions, and it might be that a better WAP would handle wireless all around.
While I certainly don't agree with the Paris theater burning fiasco, I also don't follow that the Bible encourages such action, if read properly.
And there's the basic problem. Most Muslims will tell you that the Koran, if read properly, does not encourage such action. Most Muslims believe their faith teaches tolerance and peaceful coexistence with other faiths. It's a relative minority of Muslims who believe the Koran calls on them to blow up infidels, in exactly the same way it is a minority of Christians who believe the Bible calls on them to blow up abortion clinics. Peaceful muslims aren't interesting, though, any more than the 330,000 US churches who will not be burning Korans on Saturday are interesting.
Now that you've established I am clueless, go away and read some of the genuinely insightful comments on this thread and you'll see precisely why I asked Slashdot.
In all fairness, your sig:
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
does not make you look like a control center expert.
Exactly. This is like requiring a business license for a lemonade stand. Your kid's lemonade stand probably doesn't need a license, but Daddy's Lemonade does. If this blogger made enough money from her blog to interest the IRS, then a business license may be appropriate.
Do you think Doritos would be allowed to sell bags as "up to a pound" when they averaged 9oz and some had quite a bit less? The big problem is it's one way.
Businesses do "Free while supplies last" or "All you can eat while supplies last" deals pretty regularly. Bandwidth is more like all-you-can-eat than a bad of Doritos. Your access to bandwidth may be transiently limited by other people sharing your wires anywhere between you and and the server. Your ISP can't reasonably be expected to control any of their upstream providers, much less the ISP of the server, or the quality of wiring inside your home. If the guy in front of you takes the last egg roll from the all-you-can-eat buffet, then you don't get an egg roll. If someone's Brittney Spears torrent fills the upstream pipe, then you don't get your 6.7 Mbps.
If you want guaranteed bandwidth, pay for guaranteed bandwidth. If you're only willing to pay for as-much-as-you-get, then take what you get. Personally, if an ISP says "up to," I expect that means "under extremely improbable, optimal conditions".
When one fights cultural enemies who don't play by the rules, it becomes reasonable to abandon the rules which only exist for ones own benefit (expectation of reciprocity).
I expect my government to play by its rules. There are only two things that separate the US from "the terrorists": the rules those groups adhere to and the money they have available. If the US decides we should play by whatever rules "the enemy" plays by, then the only thing separating us from those enemies is money, and the US won't always be the richest country on the planet. I don't want to have to follow the richest country's rules; I want to follow rules I agree with. The US needs to stop fucking around with other countries' governments and stick with leading by example.