You picked up a very bad example. It is perfectly possible to make very good applications using VB6 when you know what you're doing, and the same goes for any other programming language. But when you have a "script kiddie developer", he will make trash code in any language.
The new kids (new developers) sucks. They do not have the slightest idea of what is programming in an efficient manner. All that matters to them is to make "shinny new things".
The upscaling from 720p to 1080p is the one you can tell the difference easily. When you have a 720p display and another with 1080p, with similar size, you will note the bigger pixels on the 720p display. And, you would not see the difference only if you are at a distance of the two displays where you can not discern the individual pixels of the 720p display
You need a good quality 1080p film (or picture) to be able to see the difference. I have a 1080p setup at home and I can tell for sure the difference between 720p and 1080p sources.
This. Exactly, the pressure for competition is so great that there is no space for collaboration, for the things that benefit everyone. It is a constant "kill or die" that just make crazy people.
This is not really related to the sport itself, is a problem caused by the crowd. That said, here we also have crowds who act more like animals than like civilized people.
I live on Brazil, we are not hispanic (Is usually offensive to a Brazilian when a foreigner thinks he speaks Spanish). You will find it funny but I think the average Brazilian is less violent than it should be, here I live complaining to my countrymen that they do not react as they should when they are attacked and when they are cheated.
That's true... North-americans have the most violent culture I've ever seen. Violent sports (american footbal, basketball, ice hockey) violent schools (bullies can do whatever they want and the victims is that they are penalized if they react) and a way of thinking and acting violent where others around never have rights. And the thing that bothers me most is that my peers do not seem to care even a little to copy this culture within my country...
You have two problems with your argument. The first is that you assume as true what is just cheap propaganda, Lockheed can claim that their fighter is invincible and perfect it, but one can say that only after actual combat, and the data collected so far suggest that the F-35 is rubbish as a fighter. And second, you also assumes a perfect ability to attack where all their missiles always hit the target and where the enemy will always be too stupid to react. That only happens in fairy tales and in the minds of advertisers.
Well... Just remember that the enemy can do the same. And he is better armed per aircraft, their aircraft are more maneuverable, and because your fighter is more expensive then the enemy will also be in greater numbers. You can think what you want, but to me it seems a very bad strategy...
Serious, are you this dumb too? You managed to contradict himself in your own commentary! How it would be more maneuverable than the enemy fighters if it is not a dogfighter?
You missed the point. For a close air support mission, the A10 is ideal. But of course it would be stupid to put a A10 to face fighters, for a air-to-air mission you would use F18 or F22. You should use the best tool for each job, rather than trying to use a hammer for everything.
He could carry the necessary armament of course, the problem is to survive the mission. Fighters were made to face other fighters well far from the ground, were not made for go into a hell of antiaircraft fire near the ground.
An F-35 (and any fighter aircraft) can evade a MANPAD using speed of course, but will not be able to do the close support mission exactly because of the speed. And as a footnote, radar invisibility will not be any good if you are flying close to the ground (to successfully fulfill the mission of close support) and be hit by a well placed shot from light gunfire.
You are this dumb? Oh, a AC, sorry. Flying low and slow in a close air support mission is a requirement dude, not a choice of chance. If you fly too fast you have only 1 or 2 seconds (maybe not even that) to aim at the target before passing over it and having to maneuver to have another chance to shoot (which consumes time, fuel and leaves you vulnerable to counterattacks).
And a conventional fighter can not fly close to the ground because any small gun well pointed can bring him down from the sky. That's what you put armor on a A10. Does not make it "indestructible" of course, but it increases your chances considerably against antiaircraft fire. Finally, an A-10 have wings build to be highly maneuverable at low speeds (which also helps to avoid enemy fire), something that you simply can't put in a fighter made for speed as an F-35.
But, the point: The point is that is stupid to exchange specialized aircraft that do very well their missions by an aircraft that is not capable of doing well none of these missions. A F35 would not be able to face a Flanker on an air-to-air mission and also would not be able survive a mission of close support, because he is a jack of all trades and master of none.
The A-10 can fly slowly enough to stay for a long period at the site of action, can continue flying even being heavily damaged and have a cannon capable of destroying tanks. Put an F-35 in the same scenario and it would be a fireball in the sky in a few minutes.
So full of dumb propaganda... Poor guy. Just think on this little piece of information: How a F-35 will knock 11 enemies (your 11:1 ratio) if he could carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles (internally, if you want to remain "invisible" to radar)? And that IF he can avoid the missiles of 11 enemies, who assuming Flankers, will be better armed and far more able to maneuver than the F-35. But keep thinking so, exchange all your fighters for F-35's. Will be much easier to kick the ass of the the U.S. in a war if that happens.
Dude, two points: First, yeah, i KNOW that is just a game. But, even being a game is not justified, at least for me, to do things I would never do such as killing someone without any reason to do so. Second, I am of the opinion that violent games do not make people become violent, violent games only expose violent people. And if I do not like gratuitous and meaningless violence, so why try to interact with dickheads who have pleasure in gratuitous and meaningless violence? Is just better to leave them alone.
Few people have the brains to work together in an environment that does not have punishment for criminal acts. Most people only care about killing others and taking everything for themselves, and laughing at the "losers" as a bonus. This type of person ends up in jail, not in a community.
This. You can play a game that allows you to be violent/sadist, but it does not mean you need to be violent/sadist. I also refused quests in the game for not agreeing with them, and eliminated several patrols of the high elves because I did not accept them oppressing the nords.
Depends. You can have a very, very funny and good game on D&D if you have good players. Bad players exist in any type of game where you can have some kind of competition between them.
Slashdot Mirror
You picked up a very bad example. It is perfectly possible to make very good applications using VB6 when you know what you're doing, and the same goes for any other programming language. But when you have a "script kiddie developer", he will make trash code in any language.
This is not a problem in itself. The problem is when they propose to do a better tool and just end up creating a yet another very bad tool.
Developers suck.
The new kids (new developers) sucks. They do not have the slightest idea of what is programming in an efficient manner. All that matters to them is to make "shinny new things".
The upscaling from 720p to 1080p is the one you can tell the difference easily. When you have a 720p display and another with 1080p, with similar size, you will note the bigger pixels on the 720p display. And, you would not see the difference only if you are at a distance of the two displays where you can not discern the individual pixels of the 720p display
You need a good quality 1080p film (or picture) to be able to see the difference. I have a 1080p setup at home and I can tell for sure the difference between 720p and 1080p sources.
IS fraud, plain and simple. Because despite receiving the inferior panel, you paid the price of the quality one.
Are you sure?
This. Exactly, the pressure for competition is so great that there is no space for collaboration, for the things that benefit everyone. It is a constant "kill or die" that just make crazy people.
This is not really related to the sport itself, is a problem caused by the crowd. That said, here we also have crowds who act more like animals than like civilized people.
I live on Brazil, we are not hispanic (Is usually offensive to a Brazilian when a foreigner thinks he speaks Spanish). You will find it funny but I think the average Brazilian is less violent than it should be, here I live complaining to my countrymen that they do not react as they should when they are attacked and when they are cheated.
That's true... North-americans have the most violent culture I've ever seen. Violent sports (american footbal, basketball, ice hockey) violent schools (bullies can do whatever they want and the victims is that they are penalized if they react) and a way of thinking and acting violent where others around never have rights. And the thing that bothers me most is that my peers do not seem to care even a little to copy this culture within my country...
You have two problems with your argument. The first is that you assume as true what is just cheap propaganda, Lockheed can claim that their fighter is invincible and perfect it, but one can say that only after actual combat, and the data collected so far suggest that the F-35 is rubbish as a fighter. And second, you also assumes a perfect ability to attack where all their missiles always hit the target and where the enemy will always be too stupid to react. That only happens in fairy tales and in the minds of advertisers.
Well... Just remember that the enemy can do the same. And he is better armed per aircraft, their aircraft are more maneuverable, and because your fighter is more expensive then the enemy will also be in greater numbers. You can think what you want, but to me it seems a very bad strategy...
Coooff!! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laughs :-)
Serious, are you this dumb too? You managed to contradict himself in your own commentary! How it would be more maneuverable than the enemy fighters if it is not a dogfighter?
You missed the point. For a close air support mission, the A10 is ideal. But of course it would be stupid to put a A10 to face fighters, for a air-to-air mission you would use F18 or F22. You should use the best tool for each job, rather than trying to use a hammer for everything.
He could carry the necessary armament of course, the problem is to survive the mission. Fighters were made to face other fighters well far from the ground, were not made for go into a hell of antiaircraft fire near the ground.
An F-35 (and any fighter aircraft) can evade a MANPAD using speed of course, but will not be able to do the close support mission exactly because of the speed. And as a footnote, radar invisibility will not be any good if you are flying close to the ground (to successfully fulfill the mission of close support) and be hit by a well placed shot from light gunfire.
You are this dumb? Oh, a AC, sorry. Flying low and slow in a close air support mission is a requirement dude, not a choice of chance. If you fly too fast you have only 1 or 2 seconds (maybe not even that) to aim at the target before passing over it and having to maneuver to have another chance to shoot (which consumes time, fuel and leaves you vulnerable to counterattacks).
And a conventional fighter can not fly close to the ground because any small gun well pointed can bring him down from the sky. That's what you put armor on a A10. Does not make it "indestructible" of course, but it increases your chances considerably against antiaircraft fire. Finally, an A-10 have wings build to be highly maneuverable at low speeds (which also helps to avoid enemy fire), something that you simply can't put in a fighter made for speed as an F-35.
But, the point: The point is that is stupid to exchange specialized aircraft that do very well their missions by an aircraft that is not capable of doing well none of these missions. A F35 would not be able to face a Flanker on an air-to-air mission and also would not be able survive a mission of close support, because he is a jack of all trades and master of none.
The A-10 can fly slowly enough to stay for a long period at the site of action, can continue flying even being heavily damaged and have a cannon capable of destroying tanks. Put an F-35 in the same scenario and it would be a fireball in the sky in a few minutes.
So full of dumb propaganda... Poor guy. Just think on this little piece of information: How a F-35 will knock 11 enemies (your 11:1 ratio) if he could carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles (internally, if you want to remain "invisible" to radar)? And that IF he can avoid the missiles of 11 enemies, who assuming Flankers, will be better armed and far more able to maneuver than the F-35. But keep thinking so, exchange all your fighters for F-35's. Will be much easier to kick the ass of the the U.S. in a war if that happens.
Here you simply kill this type of lawyer.
Dude, two points: First, yeah, i KNOW that is just a game. But, even being a game is not justified, at least for me, to do things I would never do such as killing someone without any reason to do so. Second, I am of the opinion that violent games do not make people become violent, violent games only expose violent people. And if I do not like gratuitous and meaningless violence, so why try to interact with dickheads who have pleasure in gratuitous and meaningless violence? Is just better to leave them alone.
Few people have the brains to work together in an environment that does not have punishment for criminal acts. Most people only care about killing others and taking everything for themselves, and laughing at the "losers" as a bonus. This type of person ends up in jail, not in a community.
This. You can play a game that allows you to be violent/sadist, but it does not mean you need to be violent/sadist. I also refused quests in the game for not agreeing with them, and eliminated several patrols of the high elves because I did not accept them oppressing the nords.
Depends. You can have a very, very funny and good game on D&D if you have good players. Bad players exist in any type of game where you can have some kind of competition between them.