When I was a kid (80s) my dad would always show off his text-based Star Trek game, which he played on a VAX terminal at work. I've always looked for a port of that game, but heck, I don't know the exact system it ran on or even the real name of the game, just that he text-commanded his way through space firing photon torpedos at Klingons. One day I hope to find it and boot it up on his home computer, I imagine he'd have a fit (and not leave the computer for days).
Assistance, ideas, or vague leads are appreciated.
In the Toytoa vehicles (Lexus, really) I've worked on ('01-'05 models)... there are two throttle position sensors on the throttle body. These were Lexus IS, GS, and LS... we were taking the larger inner diameter throttle bodies off the higher displacement motors and putting them on forced induction 2JZ motors in the IS300s.
These TBs were hybrid DBW, meaning you had some amount of throttle control via direct physical cable, and the rest controlled by electronics. If the electronics stopped functioning you could never reach full throttle.
The pedal is linked to the TB via a physical cable (so there's no need for 4 sensors). Both TPS output voltage on a different angle/output ratio, and the ECU is constantly comparing the two outputs. If at any time the output ratios don't agree with the expected preprogrammed curve the vehicle goes into instant limp mode, which means you lose all DBW functionality and you've got at max around 35% throttle (via the physical cable connection)... the electric motor which drives the throttle valve through the rest of it's operating range is completely disabled. Takes a hard reset of the ECU (disconnect battery or pull the ECU) to reset from that limp mode.
I highly doubt any subsequently designed Toyotas use the "honor system". Even so, sensors aren't going to help you... the ECU has the capability to ignore pedal input altogether (or your cruise control couldn't work). If the ECU is saying "I need full power, Scotty!" and the sensors all agree "We're giving it all she's got!" you're still accellerating.
The fix is simple. Regardless of what the ECU thinks it should be doing, if the brake is applied it should override and cut throttle. Period. That will mean you hotdog-powerbraking-load-up-the-torque-convertor-and-explode-off-the-line guys will be short one trick when running from a dig, but that's why God gave us Aftermarket ECUs.
I'll call "citation needed" on your "huge number of replaced PCMs" (the repetition of the word "module" is unnecessary.
The good thing about electronic controls is that they can be monitored and checked. For example, most Toyotas with drive-by-wire (so, most modern Toyotas) have 2 throttle position sensors each reading an offset angle at an offset rate. The ECU is constantly checking BOTH these sensors, and if the range or rate from both don't "agree", it will trip a code and limp home. This is to prevent the situation where a faulty TPS makes your vehicle accellerate out of control, as the ECU thinks it's not getting the throttle response it's requesting and keeps asking for more. You won't find such functionality on completely physical systems.
You could even test for the "stuck accellerator" situation via the ECU... why not have it cut the throttle when you apply the brakes? There aren't many driving situations that don't involve racecar ass-hattery which require you to be on both simultaneously, especially in automatic transmission vehicles. You can do this if your controls are 100% electronic.
Giving up moderating this thread to reply. I tested performance brake systems in a past life.
In a controlled test, given a well maintained set of brakes, your post is bang-on. In the right conditions the engine will not overpower the brakes even at full throttle.
Keep in mind, however, that the majority of vehicles on the road aren't well-maintained test vehicles and drivers aren't creating controlled test scenarios. There are situations where your response to the situation can render your brakes all but useless and make them quite incapable of stopping the car at idle much less @ WOT. If you've ever driven down a mountain leaning on the brakes instead of using the engine you may know what I'm talking about... it doesn't take long to overheat most modern non-performance-grade brake systems.
Consider the scenario where an ineperienced driver uses the brake to maintain speed, instead of instantly realizing they need to stop. Your throttle is stuck open to some degree (not neccessaily WOT) and you keep riding the break to stay near the 65 mph speed limit instead of coming to a complete stop. In such a scenario your brakes can overheat in a few minutes' time, coating your rotors with a smooth layer of melted brake pad. When you finally realize there's a problem it may be too late for your brakes to help you much... glazed rotors will make the brake pedal feel like you've replaced your pads with hot butter.
I'm not saying that (even glazed) wouldn't eventually win the fight... but I'd expect results significantly different than some of the controlled "not so bad" tests I've heard about.
Any sort of energy that is released in the term of a second or so is useless against anything but stationary targets where you can assume you will hit the same point for that entire second
Northrop Grumman's Mobile/Tactical High Energy Laser system disagrees with your assessment... just ask the mortar shells it shot down. They've been able to shoot down large and small caliber artillery rockets, artillery shells and mortars.
Last I heard someone decided it was too expensive given the current technology and cut funding. NG was working on a less expensive version dubbed Skyguard, which may be able to protect traffic at commerical airfields from shoulder-launched anti-air missiles. (Haven't seen any videos of that system yet).
There's also the YAL-1A, same concept but mounted on a turrent in the nose of a 747.
All these systems use chemical lasers, and while we can fit them into "a few semi-trucks" (or a 747) right now, they're far from being hand-held. In any event, we're past the "Can we shoot down X with a laser" argument and are currently figuring out how to make it smaller and more cost effective. It takes intermediate research programs such as these if we ever want our ships, tanks, or soldiers making pewpewpew noises when they pull the trigger.
TSA bans the carrying of batteries over a certain size (size is their "see, we thought this through and want to be reasonable" argument). They'll release a special video on YouTube showing exactly how big an explosion they can get from a common laptop battery, and the masses will be in awe that they ever boarded a plane with such a disaster waiting to happen. Mystbusters will also film an episode where they Confirm the "Exploding Laptop Battery" myth... the episode will when a laptop battery they stuffed with 11 pounds of C4, rolled in a coating of thermite, and dipped in ball bearings is used to destroy 4 decomissioned planes somewhere in the middle of the desert.
This ban will affect laptops, portable game systems, video players, etc... the things you actually use during the flight. You'll have to remove your battery at the ticket counter, and your airline will give it to TSA to put in a special fireproof container for the duration of the flight.
The airlines come in and say "We're on your side, travellers" and begin to retrofit planes with power outlets at the seats. Ticket prices will increase slightly to help cover this retrofitting on behalf of all travellers.
Of course, 110v will be "too dangerous" and 12V cigarette lighters will be "too big to fit", even though both would allow you to use things you probably already have in your laptop bag.
Instead, they fit the planes with 8.23 V outlets which require a special 103, 72, or 45.8 degree angle doohicky (depending on the aircraft manufacturer) with three and a half prongs, which is now the special "Saf-T-FlitePower" plug. You can buy cheap throwaway adapters on each flight for something like $25 (these fall into 23 pieces or short out after 3 uses), and travel accessory companies will start selling slightly better made adapters for $75-$150. Dell will add one to your laptop for $250 if you check the correct box on the 8th tab while building it online, but it's ok, because 67% of the time the box will magically be checked by default (people who didn't mean to get one will wonder WTF this this with 3.5 plugs is when they open their UPS box and it will ride around in their laptop bag unused for 4 years).
Now, when you're on the plane, your outlet will be disabled, and it will take the flight attendant typing in a special code with your seat number to turn it on. You can buy one of these codes with your ticket, or may get one automatically if you purchase a certain fare class, and the reason for the whole thing is to cover the cost of the retrofitting (nevermind that they already increased the base cost of the ticket to help cover this, and the functionality which allows them to turn off individual outlets quadrupled the cost of the retrofit in the first place). Also, please be patient while the flight attendant enters your code... for safety reasons this has to be done after reaching cruising altitude, so on some flights you may be halfway through the flight before you even get power. (No kidding, if you've ever been on Frontier and gotten a DirecTV access code).
Once you get off the plane, you'll travel down to the baggage claim, where an avalanche of special fireproof containers will come tumbling down the little ramp. Have fun sorting them out with everyone else on the flight who had to check their battery.
Of course, those of us who don't check bags (I haven't checked a bag in over 10 years and fly 4 segments a week), will just be screwed, but luckily the SkyMall catalog will start selling a cool new device which allows you to pedal up some power for your laptop while in flight! (Eventually, there will be alternatives, such as The Wind Powered Laptop Energy Device" you attach to the overhead air duct, and The Solar Laptop Power Supply which you suction cup to your window and hope you have an AM flight with a starboard window seat on a flight headed due north.)
Soda and pretzels in steerage... I'm guessing Continental.
Continental still offers the snack and drink for free... except on sub-45-minute flights where there's barely time to get the cart into the isle between cruising altitude and starting the descent.
Apparently you didn't read your new health insurance policy. The bean counter was killing two birds with one stone... the penicillin growth was part of his plan to cut employee health benefits. You don't even have to visit the doctor to get your dose!
Carriers are big, but they are stuffed full of what they need to fight - and fuel tanks are tucked into odd corners well below the water line. Not much spare room for the major industrial plant required to produce sufficient fuel in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm not sure what form factor the current fuel storage tanks on the carriers have, but it seems a winning idea might be to design the fuel plant with the same footprint as storage tanks, then your refit process is just removing the (which is now unneccessary, since you can make your own fuel and thus store less) tank and insert the refinery.
As an added bonus, the fuel tank space should already be plumbed with piping connected to filling ports and other tanks, or at least enough space for it.
Sorry buddy, but with thinking like that, you're toast.
It's actually governed by a complex equation involving distance to safety, relative speeds between you, your companions, and the zombies, and an estimation of how much time it takes a zombie to finish with a companion, once overtaken.
It takes a serious mathematician to properly survive a zombie attack. Or guns.
At least they're not unreasonable. I mean, no one's gonna eat your eyes.;)
Why are you the only WSUS admin who's posted this experience? I see 10+ other WSUS admins who posted that it didn't go through automatically, and it was business as usual, nothing to see here...
Not knocking you, just a suggestion to perhaps figure out why your WSUS automatically did it, but most others (who posted) didn't.
Sell Burma medicine, food, heating oil, basic things like that. Don't sell them weapons or tools whose main purpose is to impose policy. Right. Because control of things like medicine, food, and heating oil has never been used to impose policy.
In the Halo universe... you're fighting on the side of Earth/UNSC... a decidedly secular organization... against the Covenant, a group of intergalactic races who follow a religion.
The leaders of the Covenant are prophets, followers are expected to blindly follow their words and teachings... which are based on a misinterpretation of an ancient civilization (the Forerunners). The Covenant is seeking to begin the "Great Journey"... by activating the Halos/temples/religious artifacts. They've even got martyrs... Mausoleum of the Arbiter anyone?
Keep in mind, because the Covenant Prophets have misintepreted/refused to understand the foundation of their religion... if they actually succeed... it means the end of the universe (well, all biomass within three radii of the galactic center, technically)
Also... in 2 and 3 you've gained new allies... followers of the Covenant religion who have realized it's false and renounced their belief in it's teachings.
In a nutshell... you're trying to protect yourself from a religion and it's zealots, as part of a secular organization. Hopefully none of the kids at game night follow the story enough to make this connection, I suppose.
Of course we all know it'll probably be mostly used for pr0n, but that's just a good hook to get kids online and techno-literate. And it's not like you coculdn't say the same thing about us when we were kids.... Humor aside... you might have just stumbled upon the solution to AIDs and overpopulation in Africa! If we give them the pr0n, maybe they'll end up like the average/. user...more likely to give jimmy a yank instead of going out to find the real thing (which has the unfortunate side effects of disease and procreation).
I know responding to aged comments is generally an exercise in futility, but the parent was well thought out and written, so I'm succumbing to temptation, for I am weak.
The intro here is a syntactical debate. I perhaps could have been more clear by saying "criticising the near-absolute loss of actual scientific methods and principles by those who call themselves "scientists" and are primarily on the human production of greenhouse gasses are the primary cause for all global warming"... but that's a lot to type, and I figured you'd know where I was coming from.;)
And interesting train of thought to board here: What's the human comfort zone? Although it's reasonable to believe that, if you feel comfortable, whereever you are right now must be your comfort zone... keep in mind there was a time in the past where wooly mammoths roamed the earth, and somebody's great_granddaddy^998 walked to North America from Asia. Maybe he wasn't comfortable... but not knowing any better he got by, spearing a mammoth here and there, and maybe dragging a cave girl off by the hair to procreate on occasion.
The Earth went about her business, the ice melted, and we got to today. We're reasonably comfortable, despite a heat wave, snow day, or hurricane getting lobbed at us on occasion. What if this isn't the natural state of the Earth? What if we just happen to be living in comfortable times... and we're spoiled. Maybe we're breaking things, maybe we don't have anything to do with it... I certainly won't fault anyone for wanting to do scientific research and understand what's going on.
If the current climate trend is the natural course of things, should we try and force it to stay in our "comfort zone"? It's not just about controlling one aspect of human input... we'd have to manage our total environmental impact. If we zero that out (unlikely)... what if that means it's going to get a little hotter... then start getting colder until we're back in an ice age, following a natural cycle? If you're liking the comfort zone... you'd have us start pumping out greenhouse gasses again to avoid the encroaching ice age... maybe hacking down some rainforests... etc.
I won't even start to talk about terraforming Mars so we can sip umbrella drinks on the beach @ Tharsis Basin. Maybe it's already too late for us to save Earth, and we just don't know it because, in the grand scheme of things, we have a very limited understanding of whats actually going on.
Again... the question isn't particularly whether ice is melting or the Swiss are losing ski-resort revenue... the real debate is "do we have anything to do with it?"
You shouldn't automatically equate criticism of the global warming with a denial that the earth is actually getting hotter.
Sure, a lot of the data shows us that things are heating up. Ice is melting. Atlantis is getting deeper. Etc etc.
What *I'm* not convinced of is whether or not we have anything to do with it. Drill all the ice you want, survey says we just recently came up with accurate methods of measuring the output of the sun (and the myriad of other variables) relative to the history of the earth. Looking at 1000, much less 100, years of climate data just doesn't cut it when you realize the earth was cycling hundreds of thousands of years before we started setting fire to rotten dinosaurs.
There's still far too much we don't understand (not to mention it's rather arrogant) to believe humankind is responsible for everything that happens here on the farm.
... but in all seriousness, there are certain tasks I'm able to do much better when I have a beer or two in me. Some of these even require skillsets similar to driving a car... hand-eye coordination, visual acuity, object/target recognition, threat assessment and response, and quick reaction times. At times it seems to be a curve you could graph... a few beers increases my abilities... too many drastically decreases them.
I'm certainly not advocating having a few beers then trying to go all Mario Andretti on your local freeway... but the point should be made that differening amounts of alcohol intake or BAC levels may have drastically different affects on different people. I've seen 200 lb people go to sleep after 2 beers, a 100 lb person hardly able to stand up after 1, and a 140 lb guy absolutely run a counterstrike server 6 beers into the evening.
The problem is, "impairment" is a highly qualitative assessment (no, I can't say my ABCs backwards stone sober)... and the state needs something quantitative to help make easy convictions. The BAC and legal limits is how they do this, conveniently ignoring that BACs will affect people differently.
Do I have a perfect system to suggest? Nope. When someone gets pulled over, maybe they should be able to challenge the officer to an on-the-spot Counterstrike match... and if I win I'm free to go. (substitute Gran Turismo if you think the impairment test should be more relevant)
On the flip side, the opponents have none of the usual cues to work with... as the computer isn't going to twitch it's left eye when it's bluffing.
Lack of emotion could be good and bad for the bots... they won't give anything away, but they live in a world based on rules... and once their rules are uncovered they're beatable (I assume this is what the researchers were trying to avoid by switching up the bot "styles", but even so, a good player could probably figure out when each one surfaced).
On the flip side... part of the game is the bluff... and the computer can't give any false clues either to "convince" the other players.
It would take a very talented poker player/secret agent to win at poker where the computer had access to all their biometrics... try getting the right cards, making the right moves, all while beating an uber lie detector. Ouch.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was a kid (80s) my dad would always show off his text-based Star Trek game, which he played on a VAX terminal at work. I've always looked for a port of that game, but heck, I don't know the exact system it ran on or even the real name of the game, just that he text-commanded his way through space firing photon torpedos at Klingons. One day I hope to find it and boot it up on his home computer, I imagine he'd have a fit (and not leave the computer for days).
Assistance, ideas, or vague leads are appreciated.
In the Toytoa vehicles (Lexus, really) I've worked on ('01-'05 models)... there are two throttle position sensors on the throttle body. These were Lexus IS, GS, and LS... we were taking the larger inner diameter throttle bodies off the higher displacement motors and putting them on forced induction 2JZ motors in the IS300s.
These TBs were hybrid DBW, meaning you had some amount of throttle control via direct physical cable, and the rest controlled by electronics. If the electronics stopped functioning you could never reach full throttle.
The pedal is linked to the TB via a physical cable (so there's no need for 4 sensors). Both TPS output voltage on a different angle/output ratio, and the ECU is constantly comparing the two outputs. If at any time the output ratios don't agree with the expected preprogrammed curve the vehicle goes into instant limp mode, which means you lose all DBW functionality and you've got at max around 35% throttle (via the physical cable connection)... the electric motor which drives the throttle valve through the rest of it's operating range is completely disabled. Takes a hard reset of the ECU (disconnect battery or pull the ECU) to reset from that limp mode.
I highly doubt any subsequently designed Toyotas use the "honor system". Even so, sensors aren't going to help you... the ECU has the capability to ignore pedal input altogether (or your cruise control couldn't work). If the ECU is saying "I need full power, Scotty!" and the sensors all agree "We're giving it all she's got!" you're still accellerating.
The fix is simple. Regardless of what the ECU thinks it should be doing, if the brake is applied it should override and cut throttle. Period. That will mean you hotdog-powerbraking-load-up-the-torque-convertor-and-explode-off-the-line guys will be short one trick when running from a dig, but that's why God gave us Aftermarket ECUs.
Apparently Woz is already one million dollars richer.
I'll call "citation needed" on your "huge number of replaced PCMs" (the repetition of the word "module" is unnecessary.
The good thing about electronic controls is that they can be monitored and checked. For example, most Toyotas with drive-by-wire (so, most modern Toyotas) have 2 throttle position sensors each reading an offset angle at an offset rate. The ECU is constantly checking BOTH these sensors, and if the range or rate from both don't "agree", it will trip a code and limp home. This is to prevent the situation where a faulty TPS makes your vehicle accellerate out of control, as the ECU thinks it's not getting the throttle response it's requesting and keeps asking for more. You won't find such functionality on completely physical systems.
You could even test for the "stuck accellerator" situation via the ECU... why not have it cut the throttle when you apply the brakes? There aren't many driving situations that don't involve racecar ass-hattery which require you to be on both simultaneously, especially in automatic transmission vehicles. You can do this if your controls are 100% electronic.
Giving up moderating this thread to reply. I tested performance brake systems in a past life.
In a controlled test, given a well maintained set of brakes, your post is bang-on. In the right conditions the engine will not overpower the brakes even at full throttle.
Keep in mind, however, that the majority of vehicles on the road aren't well-maintained test vehicles and drivers aren't creating controlled test scenarios. There are situations where your response to the situation can render your brakes all but useless and make them quite incapable of stopping the car at idle much less @ WOT. If you've ever driven down a mountain leaning on the brakes instead of using the engine you may know what I'm talking about... it doesn't take long to overheat most modern non-performance-grade brake systems.
Consider the scenario where an ineperienced driver uses the brake to maintain speed, instead of instantly realizing they need to stop. Your throttle is stuck open to some degree (not neccessaily WOT) and you keep riding the break to stay near the 65 mph speed limit instead of coming to a complete stop. In such a scenario your brakes can overheat in a few minutes' time, coating your rotors with a smooth layer of melted brake pad. When you finally realize there's a problem it may be too late for your brakes to help you much... glazed rotors will make the brake pedal feel like you've replaced your pads with hot butter.
I'm not saying that (even glazed) wouldn't eventually win the fight... but I'd expect results significantly different than some of the controlled "not so bad" tests I've heard about.
Any sort of energy that is released in the term of a second or so is useless against anything but stationary targets where you can assume you will hit the same point for that entire second
Northrop Grumman's Mobile/Tactical High Energy Laser system disagrees with your assessment... just ask the mortar shells it shot down. They've been able to shoot down large and small caliber artillery rockets, artillery shells and mortars.
Last I heard someone decided it was too expensive given the current technology and cut funding. NG was working on a less expensive version dubbed Skyguard, which may be able to protect traffic at commerical airfields from shoulder-launched anti-air missiles. (Haven't seen any videos of that system yet).
There's also the YAL-1A, same concept but mounted on a turrent in the nose of a 747.
All these systems use chemical lasers, and while we can fit them into "a few semi-trucks" (or a 747) right now, they're far from being hand-held. In any event, we're past the "Can we shoot down X with a laser" argument and are currently figuring out how to make it smaller and more cost effective. It takes intermediate research programs such as these if we ever want our ships, tanks, or soldiers making pewpewpew noises when they pull the trigger.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
"intensive purposes" is retarded
Perhaps the poster was going for "for all intents and purposes"?
If so, ouch.
I can see it already...
TSA bans the carrying of batteries over a certain size (size is their "see, we thought this through and want to be reasonable" argument). They'll release a special video on YouTube showing exactly how big an explosion they can get from a common laptop battery, and the masses will be in awe that they ever boarded a plane with such a disaster waiting to happen. Mystbusters will also film an episode where they Confirm the "Exploding Laptop Battery" myth... the episode will when a laptop battery they stuffed with 11 pounds of C4, rolled in a coating of thermite, and dipped in ball bearings is used to destroy 4 decomissioned planes somewhere in the middle of the desert.
This ban will affect laptops, portable game systems, video players, etc... the things you actually use during the flight. You'll have to remove your battery at the ticket counter, and your airline will give it to TSA to put in a special fireproof container for the duration of the flight.
The airlines come in and say "We're on your side, travellers" and begin to retrofit planes with power outlets at the seats. Ticket prices will increase slightly to help cover this retrofitting on behalf of all travellers.
Of course, 110v will be "too dangerous" and 12V cigarette lighters will be "too big to fit", even though both would allow you to use things you probably already have in your laptop bag.
Instead, they fit the planes with 8.23 V outlets which require a special 103, 72, or 45.8 degree angle doohicky (depending on the aircraft manufacturer) with three and a half prongs, which is now the special "Saf-T-FlitePower" plug. You can buy cheap throwaway adapters on each flight for something like $25 (these fall into 23 pieces or short out after 3 uses), and travel accessory companies will start selling slightly better made adapters for $75-$150. Dell will add one to your laptop for $250 if you check the correct box on the 8th tab while building it online, but it's ok, because 67% of the time the box will magically be checked by default (people who didn't mean to get one will wonder WTF this this with 3.5 plugs is when they open their UPS box and it will ride around in their laptop bag unused for 4 years).
Now, when you're on the plane, your outlet will be disabled, and it will take the flight attendant typing in a special code with your seat number to turn it on. You can buy one of these codes with your ticket, or may get one automatically if you purchase a certain fare class, and the reason for the whole thing is to cover the cost of the retrofitting (nevermind that they already increased the base cost of the ticket to help cover this, and the functionality which allows them to turn off individual outlets quadrupled the cost of the retrofit in the first place). Also, please be patient while the flight attendant enters your code... for safety reasons this has to be done after reaching cruising altitude, so on some flights you may be halfway through the flight before you even get power. (No kidding, if you've ever been on Frontier and gotten a DirecTV access code).
Once you get off the plane, you'll travel down to the baggage claim, where an avalanche of special fireproof containers will come tumbling down the little ramp. Have fun sorting them out with everyone else on the flight who had to check their battery.
Of course, those of us who don't check bags (I haven't checked a bag in over 10 years and fly 4 segments a week), will just be screwed, but luckily the SkyMall catalog will start selling a cool new device which allows you to pedal up some power for your laptop while in flight! (Eventually, there will be alternatives, such as The Wind Powered Laptop Energy Device" you attach to the overhead air duct, and The Solar Laptop Power Supply which you suction cup to your window and hope you have an AM flight with a starboard window seat on a flight headed due north.)
Soda and pretzels in steerage... I'm guessing Continental.
Continental still offers the snack and drink for free... except on sub-45-minute flights where there's barely time to get the cart into the isle between cruising altitude and starting the descent.
studies show both penicillin...
Apparently you didn't read your new health insurance policy. The bean counter was killing two birds with one stone... the penicillin growth was part of his plan to cut employee health benefits. You don't even have to visit the doctor to get your dose!
The live attenuated flu vaccine, FluMist...
Before I clicked the link, I thought you were talking about getting sneezed on by someone who has the flu...
Marketing department might want to rethink that name. ;)
Also great for dieting... eat a bunch of suagr and the heatsink sticking out of your back just gets a little warm.
Carriers are big, but they are stuffed full of what they need to fight - and fuel tanks are tucked into odd corners well below the water line. Not much spare room for the major industrial plant required to produce sufficient fuel in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm not sure what form factor the current fuel storage tanks on the carriers have, but it seems a winning idea might be to design the fuel plant with the same footprint as storage tanks, then your refit process is just removing the (which is now unneccessary, since you can make your own fuel and thus store less) tank and insert the refinery.
As an added bonus, the fuel tank space should already be plumbed with piping connected to filling ports and other tanks, or at least enough space for it.
What are these 3d parties you speak of, and how do I get invited?
Sorry buddy, but with thinking like that, you're toast.
;)
It's actually governed by a complex equation involving distance to safety, relative speeds between you, your companions, and the zombies, and an estimation of how much time it takes a zombie to finish with a companion, once overtaken.
It takes a serious mathematician to properly survive a zombie attack. Or guns.
At least they're not unreasonable. I mean, no one's gonna eat your eyes.
Hrmm.
Perhaps a valid question here:
Why are you the only WSUS admin who's posted this experience? I see 10+ other WSUS admins who posted that it didn't go through automatically, and it was business as usual, nothing to see here...
Not knocking you, just a suggestion to perhaps figure out why your WSUS automatically did it, but most others (who posted) didn't.
I believe the term you seek is "Hydraulic Empire"
He who controls the spice...
120 grand a year for a divorce lawyer? What, did he only take 5 cases? ;)
In the Halo universe... you're fighting on the side of Earth/UNSC... a decidedly secular organization... against the Covenant, a group of intergalactic races who follow a religion.
The leaders of the Covenant are prophets, followers are expected to blindly follow their words and teachings... which are based on a misinterpretation of an ancient civilization (the Forerunners). The Covenant is seeking to begin the "Great Journey"... by activating the Halos/temples/religious artifacts. They've even got martyrs... Mausoleum of the Arbiter anyone?
Keep in mind, because the Covenant Prophets have misintepreted/refused to understand the foundation of their religion... if they actually succeed... it means the end of the universe (well, all biomass within three radii of the galactic center, technically)
Also... in 2 and 3 you've gained new allies... followers of the Covenant religion who have realized it's false and renounced their belief in it's teachings.
In a nutshell... you're trying to protect yourself from a religion and it's zealots, as part of a secular organization. Hopefully none of the kids at game night follow the story enough to make this connection, I suppose.
The intro here is a syntactical debate. I perhaps could have been more clear by saying "criticising the near-absolute loss of actual scientific methods and principles by those who call themselves "scientists" and are primarily on the human production of greenhouse gasses are the primary cause for all global warming"... but that's a lot to type, and I figured you'd know where I was coming from. ;)
And interesting train of thought to board here: What's the human comfort zone? Although it's reasonable to believe that, if you feel comfortable, whereever you are right now must be your comfort zone... keep in mind there was a time in the past where wooly mammoths roamed the earth, and somebody's great_granddaddy^998 walked to North America from Asia. Maybe he wasn't comfortable... but not knowing any better he got by, spearing a mammoth here and there, and maybe dragging a cave girl off by the hair to procreate on occasion.
The Earth went about her business, the ice melted, and we got to today. We're reasonably comfortable, despite a heat wave, snow day, or hurricane getting lobbed at us on occasion. What if this isn't the natural state of the Earth? What if we just happen to be living in comfortable times... and we're spoiled. Maybe we're breaking things, maybe we don't have anything to do with it... I certainly won't fault anyone for wanting to do scientific research and understand what's going on.
If the current climate trend is the natural course of things, should we try and force it to stay in our "comfort zone"? It's not just about controlling one aspect of human input... we'd have to manage our total environmental impact. If we zero that out (unlikely)... what if that means it's going to get a little hotter... then start getting colder until we're back in an ice age, following a natural cycle? If you're liking the comfort zone... you'd have us start pumping out greenhouse gasses again to avoid the encroaching ice age... maybe hacking down some rainforests... etc.
I won't even start to talk about terraforming Mars so we can sip umbrella drinks on the beach @ Tharsis Basin. Maybe it's already too late for us to save Earth, and we just don't know it because, in the grand scheme of things, we have a very limited understanding of whats actually going on.
Again... the question isn't particularly whether ice is melting or the Swiss are losing ski-resort revenue... the real debate is "do we have anything to do with it?"
Sure, a lot of the data shows us that things are heating up. Ice is melting. Atlantis is getting deeper. Etc etc.
What *I'm* not convinced of is whether or not we have anything to do with it. Drill all the ice you want, survey says we just recently came up with accurate methods of measuring the output of the sun (and the myriad of other variables) relative to the history of the earth. Looking at 1000, much less 100, years of climate data just doesn't cut it when you realize the earth was cycling hundreds of thousands of years before we started setting fire to rotten dinosaurs.
There's still far too much we don't understand (not to mention it's rather arrogant) to believe humankind is responsible for everything that happens here on the farm.
I'm certainly not advocating having a few beers then trying to go all Mario Andretti on your local freeway... but the point should be made that differening amounts of alcohol intake or BAC levels may have drastically different affects on different people. I've seen 200 lb people go to sleep after 2 beers, a 100 lb person hardly able to stand up after 1, and a 140 lb guy absolutely run a counterstrike server 6 beers into the evening.
The problem is, "impairment" is a highly qualitative assessment (no, I can't say my ABCs backwards stone sober)... and the state needs something quantitative to help make easy convictions. The BAC and legal limits is how they do this, conveniently ignoring that BACs will affect people differently.
Do I have a perfect system to suggest? Nope. When someone gets pulled over, maybe they should be able to challenge the officer to an on-the-spot Counterstrike match... and if I win I'm free to go. (substitute Gran Turismo if you think the impairment test should be more relevant)
Lack of emotion could be good and bad for the bots... they won't give anything away, but they live in a world based on rules... and once their rules are uncovered they're beatable (I assume this is what the researchers were trying to avoid by switching up the bot "styles", but even so, a good player could probably figure out when each one surfaced).
On the flip side... part of the game is the bluff... and the computer can't give any false clues either to "convince" the other players.
It would take a very talented poker player/secret agent to win at poker where the computer had access to all their biometrics... try getting the right cards, making the right moves, all while beating an uber lie detector. Ouch.