So take it back to the shop. Get a refund. They sold it to you as a game that you could take home and play (if not explicitly, then implicitly from the packaging). If it took 3 hours then this is not the case, and it was not suitable for the purpose for which sold (in the UK this falls under the Trade Descriptions Act. Check in your what it's covered by in your jurisdiction before you go to the shop, and quote it to them).
I don't have the game, so don't take this as me stating the existing facts. Valve probably has a disclaimer that disclaims any warranties, implied or express. If the disclaimer is conspicuous, usually meaning in caps clearly stated as a disclaimer, then your implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is toast.
In the US, implied warranty of merchantibility is the one applicable for a game that is not of good quality and fit for its ordinary purpose.
OK, 90% of the objections seem to be about muscle atrophy and having no one on-board keeping an eye on things. Here's my idea of an easy fix, ala 2001 - take shifts.
A Mars trip has generally been planned for 4-5 crew members. If its 90 day trip to get to and from the planet, one person at any time is out of hibernation for 15-18 days. That person does the "housekeeping" on board and gets plenty of exercise. Problem solved. Someone is watching the ship at all times, and everyone gets exercise in-trip to maintain muscle mass lost in hibernation.
Say there's a four-person crew. The pilot/commander takes the first wake watch, and also the last wake watch to recover from the longest hibernation period. There would be five watches of 18 days (15 days if 5 person crew.)
Valve Software's Half-Life 2 has been submitted to the BBFC for certification, we've learnt this afternoon, news which adds credence to recent rumours that Vivendi is shortly to announce that the hotly anticipated first-person shooter sequel has finally 'gone gold'.
You beat me to it. Sloppy reading.
Also note that as far as VIVENDI is concerned, the game is finished. Well, that isn't necessarily a vote of confidence for a polished product. As far as we know, Vivendi told Valve, "enough, you're f'in done, release it."
Let's hope the game is a truly finished product, and that Valve soon confirms it "went gold".
Any manned spacecraft intended for a planetary mission would need to carry a propulsion system to get OFF planet anyway. So carrying an extra load of juice to "correct" any beam mistake would be good sense. It's still tens of tons less weight to carry around the solar system. And the lowered mission duration is advantageous.
The whole "oops, bad aim" issue is a problem though, I agree.
Halliburton isn't an "oil company" that develops any energy sources. They are an oil and gas services company. They do the management and manual labor, not the exploration and R&D. That is the Exxons, et al, of the world.
I know Halliburton is the Root of All Evil of the moment for some people, but christ.
Burt Rutan spent $20 million on his prototype. That's pocket change to NASA, yet I haven't seen anything come out of NASA that is even close to what Rutan designed. I haven't seen any NASA spaceplane prototypes even take off, let alone go sub-orbital.
That's mostly because the US government got there, oh, nearly 40 years ago.
SpaceshipOne is not innovative in any way technologically. It's revolutionary because for the first time, a non-governmental organization did it.
That said, the promise of Apollo was that we'd all be flying to vacations in space in no time. Well, here we are, 30 some odd years since the first Moon landing, and nothing. NASA can't open up the frontier. Private, profit making corporations will. I hope this is the start of the deluge.
This is only correct if you send everything in one trip.
The most popular Mars plan calls for two trips - an unmanned cargo trip that plants in situ fuel generator, a nuclear reactor for power, and various other supplies. The manned vehicle and hab follow on the next window.
There really is no need for any radical technological improvements to get to Mars. It's mostly incremental improvements, most which can be tested on the Moon beforehand, building infrastructure and expertise.
We might get there within our lifetimes. Don't be a gloomy gus, man!;)
Well, considering that "right away" Mars mission is probably as far out as 30-40 years, I don't think there's much in the way of conflicting priorities here.
Who's talking about Akamai? Hello? The folks that USE AKAMAI should have alternates. That is standard operating procedure in any serious operation.
The content providers' sites came back up because they switched to their own in-house DNS. They should have had more than one (Akamai) off-site DNS provider to begin with.
Someone please explain the concept of "secondary DNS" to these folks. Backup DNS, folks, backup DNS. Never put all your eggs in one basket and all that.
Just because Joe Wilson mentions these earlier, pre-1991 attempts to obtain uranium doesn't contradict his claim that there were no such attempts ten years later.
Yes, I forgot that Mr. Wilson's wife didn't take his name.
As to his claims, the claimed attempt to obtain uranium occurred in **1999**, not pre-GWI. His Niger source identifies the Iraqi official as none other than the Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf.
Interestingly, it appears rather that Mr. Wilson was the one sexing up his claims. While steadfastly denying the truth of the claim that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Niger, in actuality his Niger sources informed him in 2002 Iraq *might* have, and then later positively identified Sayyaf.
For reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-d yn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A54640-2004Apr29¬Found= true
Umm, BZZT. The documents the whole case was built on were fraudulent. Go study current affairs.
Umm, BZZT. Go read Plame's OWN BOOK, dumbass. He now says his sources in Niger say Iraq was shopping for yellow cake. Keep on current affairs much? Or did you just not know who "Plame" was?
She was an undercover operative for the CIA, who 'worked' for a shell company.
Years ago. She was no longer in an operative role.
Why don't you make sure you know what you're talking about before you go shooting your mouth off and embarrassing yourself?
There is one primary reason for the US not signing on to the "landmine treaty" - North Korea. The DMZ is the largest landmine zone on the planet. And I imagine the South Koreans who still remember the Korean War appreciate it.
Listen to his allies? Bush blew the cover of a CIA spy because her husband was saying things he didn't want to hear.
You don't hear much from Mr. Plame since his book came out. The book that says his sources in Niger confirmed that Iraq was fishing for yellow cake in Niger.
His wife wasn't a "CIA spy", either. Just because someone works for the CIA, doesn't mean they are operating under official cover.
the restaurant attack on saddam for example? too bad about anyone else in the restaurant, or the near vicinity
Because of course Saddam was just hanging out and mingling with the little people, and the restaurant wasn't cleared and secured by his security detail first.
The Soviets were spending about 15-17% of GNP on the military, and growing, by the 80s. In comparison, the US spends 3% of GNP on defense. To put that into perspective, the US spent 130% of GNP during WWII, 15% of GNP during the Korean War, 12% of GNP during Vietnam. In other words, we have the best fighting force on the planet, and we spend the tiniest fraction of our national wealth to buy it. The United States can bear a protracted, low-intensity war like the WOT relatively easily because the United States economy is mammoth. An 11 Trillion dollar economy can bear quite a bit.
The Soviet Union couldn't, because the Soviet command economy was hollow.
This is a TACTICAL, not STRATEGIC, weapon system. It is not intended to defend against "ballistic missiles" like ICBMs. It is intended to defend against short range, tactical weapons like mortars, rockets, guided missiles, and small aircraft.
I wonder how long until these will be deployed domestically, around various government buildings (such as the White House, the US Capitol, or the Pentagon).
It won't. This isn't a "missile defense system" per se, it is a tactical battefield weapon designed for force protection. To be used to defend troops and installations against short range tactical weapons like rockets, mortars, cruise missiles, etc. Not of much use in the continental US.
However, these lasers, and especially the larger, immobile THEL version, are perfect for Israel. Israeli communities and the IDF are constantly being harrassed by hit and run Katushka rocket, mortar, and guided missile threats from HAMAS and other Pal terrorists in the Territories, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
It isn't. Neither is an F-16, does that mean an F-16 is worthless? The weapon isn't meant to counter car bombers, obviously.
This is a tactical battlefield weapon meant for force protection. The article concerns the mobile THEL laser.
The larger, immobile THEL theoretically will be able to shoot down *mortar shells*. It has already been tested to successfully shoot down Katyushka small caliber rockets. These are revolutionary weapons systems.
Slashdot Mirror
So take it back to the shop. Get a refund. They sold it to you as a game that you could take home and play (if not explicitly, then implicitly from the packaging). If it took 3 hours then this is not the case, and it was not suitable for the purpose for which sold (in the UK this falls under the Trade Descriptions Act. Check in your what it's covered by in your jurisdiction before you go to the shop, and quote it to them).
I don't have the game, so don't take this as me stating the existing facts. Valve probably has a disclaimer that disclaims any warranties, implied or express. If the disclaimer is conspicuous, usually meaning in caps clearly stated as a disclaimer, then your implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is toast.
In the US, implied warranty of merchantibility is the one applicable for a game that is not of good quality and fit for its ordinary purpose.
OK, 90% of the objections seem to be about muscle atrophy and having no one on-board keeping an eye on things. Here's my idea of an easy fix, ala 2001 - take shifts.
A Mars trip has generally been planned for 4-5 crew members. If its 90 day trip to get to and from the planet, one person at any time is out of hibernation for 15-18 days. That person does the "housekeeping" on board and gets plenty of exercise. Problem solved. Someone is watching the ship at all times, and everyone gets exercise in-trip to maintain muscle mass lost in hibernation.
Say there's a four-person crew. The pilot/commander takes the first wake watch, and also the last wake watch to recover from the longest hibernation period. There would be five watches of 18 days (15 days if 5 person crew.)
Voila.
Valve Software's Half-Life 2 has been submitted to the BBFC for certification, we've learnt this afternoon, news which adds credence to recent rumours that Vivendi is shortly to announce that the hotly anticipated first-person shooter sequel has finally 'gone gold'.
You beat me to it. Sloppy reading.
Also note that as far as VIVENDI is concerned, the game is finished. Well, that isn't necessarily a vote of confidence for a polished product. As far as we know, Vivendi told Valve, "enough, you're f'in done, release it."
Let's hope the game is a truly finished product, and that Valve soon confirms it "went gold".
Any manned spacecraft intended for a planetary mission would need to carry a propulsion system to get OFF planet anyway. So carrying an extra load of juice to "correct" any beam mistake would be good sense. It's still tens of tons less weight to carry around the solar system. And the lowered mission duration is advantageous.
The whole "oops, bad aim" issue is a problem though, I agree.
Come on, this is lame. No, your car isn't going to get 1000+ mpg because it isn't 80 pounds and powered by a 3 hp motor.
Yeah, they made neat toys. Wahoo.
Halliburton isn't an "oil company" that develops any energy sources. They are an oil and gas services company. They do the management and manual labor, not the exploration and R&D. That is the Exxons, et al, of the world.
I know Halliburton is the Root of All Evil of the moment for some people, but christ.
Burt Rutan spent $20 million on his prototype. That's pocket change to NASA, yet I haven't seen anything come out of NASA that is even close to what Rutan designed. I haven't seen any NASA spaceplane prototypes even take off, let alone go sub-orbital.
That's mostly because the US government got there, oh, nearly 40 years ago.
SpaceshipOne is not innovative in any way technologically. It's revolutionary because for the first time, a non-governmental organization did it.
That said, the promise of Apollo was that we'd all be flying to vacations in space in no time. Well, here we are, 30 some odd years since the first Moon landing, and nothing. NASA can't open up the frontier. Private, profit making corporations will. I hope this is the start of the deluge.
How are a few fledgling attempts to break the 100km barrier anything close to a feasible manned Mars mission?
Get a private spacecraft to LEO and the game is wide open. After LEO, anything is possible.
This is only correct if you send everything in one trip.
;)
The most popular Mars plan calls for two trips - an unmanned cargo trip that plants in situ fuel generator, a nuclear reactor for power, and various other supplies. The manned vehicle and hab follow on the next window.
There really is no need for any radical technological improvements to get to Mars. It's mostly incremental improvements, most which can be tested on the Moon beforehand, building infrastructure and expertise.
We might get there within our lifetimes. Don't be a gloomy gus, man!
Well, considering that "right away" Mars mission is probably as far out as 30-40 years, I don't think there's much in the way of conflicting priorities here.
Who's talking about Akamai? Hello? The folks that USE AKAMAI should have alternates. That is standard operating procedure in any serious operation.
The content providers' sites came back up because they switched to their own in-house DNS. They should have had more than one (Akamai) off-site DNS provider to begin with.
it may only be a few years before a private party is able to launch people into actual orbit.
Someone is already working on it.
Someone please explain the concept of "secondary DNS" to these folks. Backup DNS, folks, backup DNS. Never put all your eggs in one basket and all that.
Just because Joe Wilson mentions these earlier, pre-1991 attempts to obtain uranium doesn't contradict his claim that there were no such attempts ten years later.
d yn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A54640-2004Apr29¬Found= true
Yes, I forgot that Mr. Wilson's wife didn't take his name.
As to his claims, the claimed attempt to obtain uranium occurred in **1999**, not pre-GWI. His Niger source identifies the Iraqi official as none other than the Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf.
Interestingly, it appears rather that Mr. Wilson was the one sexing up his claims. While steadfastly denying the truth of the claim that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Niger, in actuality his Niger sources informed him in 2002 Iraq *might* have, and then later positively identified Sayyaf.
For reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
Umm, BZZT. The documents the whole case was built on were fraudulent. Go study current affairs.
Umm, BZZT. Go read Plame's OWN BOOK, dumbass. He now says his sources in Niger say Iraq was shopping for yellow cake. Keep on current affairs much? Or did you just not know who "Plame" was?
She was an undercover operative for the CIA, who 'worked' for a shell company.
Years ago. She was no longer in an operative role.
Why don't you make sure you know what you're talking about before you go shooting your mouth off and embarrassing yourself?
There is one primary reason for the US not signing on to the "landmine treaty" - North Korea. The DMZ is the largest landmine zone on the planet. And I imagine the South Koreans who still remember the Korean War appreciate it.
Listen to his allies? Bush blew the cover of a CIA spy because her husband was saying things he didn't want to hear.
You don't hear much from Mr. Plame since his book came out. The book that says his sources in Niger confirmed that Iraq was fishing for yellow cake in Niger.
His wife wasn't a "CIA spy", either. Just because someone works for the CIA, doesn't mean they are operating under official cover.
It's nice to see a country with the balls to try to make things better.
More likely, South Africa faced no security threat that required the deterrance of nuclear weapons to justify their expense.
the restaurant attack on saddam for example? too bad about anyone else in the restaurant, or the near vicinity
Because of course Saddam was just hanging out and mingling with the little people, and the restaurant wasn't cleared and secured by his security detail first.
The Soviets were spending about 15-17% of GNP on the military, and growing, by the 80s. In comparison, the US spends 3% of GNP on defense. To put that into perspective, the US spent 130% of GNP during WWII, 15% of GNP during the Korean War, 12% of GNP during Vietnam. In other words, we have the best fighting force on the planet, and we spend the tiniest fraction of our national wealth to buy it. The United States can bear a protracted, low-intensity war like the WOT relatively easily because the United States economy is mammoth. An 11 Trillion dollar economy can bear quite a bit.
The Soviet Union couldn't, because the Soviet command economy was hollow.
Read the article next time.
This is not a strategic ballistic missile defense system. The word TACTICAL is in the name for a reason......
An intelligent, informed poster! Can it really be??!! :::bows before the leetness that is ksheff:::
This is a TACTICAL, not STRATEGIC, weapon system. It is not intended to defend against "ballistic missiles" like ICBMs. It is intended to defend against short range, tactical weapons like mortars, rockets, guided missiles, and small aircraft.
Does anyone actually read the articles?
I wonder how long until these will be deployed domestically, around various government buildings (such as the White House, the US Capitol, or the Pentagon).
It won't. This isn't a "missile defense system" per se, it is a tactical battefield weapon designed for force protection. To be used to defend troops and installations against short range tactical weapons like rockets, mortars, cruise missiles, etc. Not of much use in the continental US.
However, these lasers, and especially the larger, immobile THEL version, are perfect for Israel. Israeli communities and the IDF are constantly being harrassed by hit and run Katushka rocket, mortar, and guided missile threats from HAMAS and other Pal terrorists in the Territories, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
It isn't. Neither is an F-16, does that mean an F-16 is worthless? The weapon isn't meant to counter car bombers, obviously.
This is a tactical battlefield weapon meant for force protection. The article concerns the mobile THEL laser.
The larger, immobile THEL theoretically will be able to shoot down *mortar shells*. It has already been tested to successfully shoot down Katyushka small caliber rockets. These are revolutionary weapons systems.