I see you guys are trying to play French aren't you, going on strike and all that. Now think about why you despise the French so much, and go back to work.
To make things safe, autonomous cares probably drive very slowly and only take the safest of decisions. Which renders them quite useless, as not only do they take ages to take you from A to B, they slow down other people too.
They're also probably unable to deal with unexpected things or drivers not driving correctly. And finally, image recognition etc. is probably slower than human reaction time.
Until we can build machine that can best a racing driver and a track it doesn't know, this technology is worthless in my opinion.
There's a reason why George R. R. Martin notoriously uses Wordstar on MS-DOS to this day, you know.:)
Maybe that's why his next book is five years late?
Re:Bittorrent + simple TV media player
on
Apple vs. Google TVs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Depends, do you realize that what you are doing likely requires breaking the law. If you're one of those 'I don't watch copyrighted content' then just go fuck yourself because no one cares.
Possibly. I download TV shows the day they air, but I have no other solution if I want to see those shows anyway since it might take years for them to ever arrive in my country, if they even do (and if they do, they're usually crippled with some horrible dubs).
Bittorrent + simple TV media player
on
Apple vs. Google TVs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
is all you should ever need I personally use one of those devices from Western Digital which are $50.
Why would you want to purchase crappy VoD services full of DRM and only providing a handful of stuff when you can get whatever you want and more in true high quality and without restrictions?
No need for a new branch of physics. The infamous Orion nuclear-propulsion design, which is more than fifty years old now, could reach 10% of light speed using thermonuclear explosions and up to 80% of light speed using matter-antimatter pulses.
Of course, there are probably engineering problems to make it feasible; but not really fundamental physics ones.
Instead of saying "yes we already know this", we should be saying "yes this is true, and we should be talking about it every day."
Doesn't sound like an efficient use of my time to talk of the same thing over and over without being ever able to fix it. From a pragmatic point of view, it's a better idea to sit on it and move along.
Why would we have to restrict ourselves to a limiting behaviour when we don't need to?
The approach of changing our behaviour doesn't work. Take an example: we need wood, but trees are scarce. The solution is therefore simple: plant trees as we cut some. Not cutting trees, or cutting less trees, is no solution. It's basically the approach humanity took when it moved from hunter-gatherers to farmers.
Just like we can farm to supply the demands for food, we can plant trees to supply the demand for CO2 reduction.
So, if you didn't have government contracts, then how would the government purchase the things it needs to run, like employees, paper, computers, facilities, weapons, etc?
Maybe it doesn't need to run all that.
Are you proposing that the government create all this stuff by itself (some sort of Communism, I guess) so it doesn't have to rely on private parties?
You don't purchase employees from private parties, for one. You hire them, and most countries have their own public schools to train those people and competitive exams to select them. For paper, computers, facilities, they usually buy the cheapest offer that they're made. For weapons, they tend to produce them themselves, since they're fairly sensitive material and not freely purchasable in most countries anyway.
Putting people from another state under trial using a juridical system outside of its jurisdiction does not make sense; it's a sham to justify oppression or murder, and people that feel they were oppressed need to oppress their oppressors to feel good again.
Whether the people did dubious things from a morality point of view is irrelevant. Morality is relative, and has as much its place in justice as religion does. But war is quite nonsense anyway. Brainwashing of the winner has been fairly efficient, and people now believe that the morals of the winner are "justice" and that the loser is pure evil that should be removed. Somehow this translates into some kind of biased fanatical revenge justice and intolerance of morals that differ from the now-established winner's norm.
There is nothing particularly horrible about shooting deserters of all kinds. It has been done for thousands of years by everyone, often in a more gruesome manner than the GDR did. Times of war or trouble involve keeping the population under control and check. More or less subtle propaganda, armed intervention and powerful police force, are the de-facto standard methods used to achieve this.
Killing people is "bad", but it may not seem as bad by people if it's used to achieve a purpose, such as establishing a new revolutionary order. Before trying to take revenge on such people, from a humanitarian point of view, I think it is important to try to understand their morals and motivations.
This one is pretty clear - you can be in the role of attempting to escape, or see what it was like for the guards. TFA finally gets around to pointing out that players who choose to shoot and kill those who attempt escape face the consequences for their actions by having their character stand trial later for the crime. They also give the choice of killing or not killing.
I'm sorry, what crime are you talking about? The border guards did nothing illegal as far as the GDR law is concerned, since they were military personnel whose service consisted of preventing people to escape by any means necessary.
Putting them on a FRG trial many years afterwards is simply pure nonsense to satisfy crazy mobs. FRG law didn't apply in that region back then.
I know for a fact that at least one of the h265 proposals, the one from Nokia, Tandberg and Ericsson, does run in real-time, since we have it working on prototype videconferencing software.
I'm not a wine buff, but I've found that Australian, Chilean, South African and Californian wines are generally both better and cheaper than French wines.
Australian, Chilean, South African and Californian wines are better value for money than French ones. No need to be a be a wine buff to realize that.
It is because the French cannot compete in terms of value for money that they want to protect their appellations. What they can compete in is in terms of quality, and their Appellations d'Origine Contrôlée certify that the product matches what the name represents, providing quality control consumers have access to.
Now, that doesn't mean all French wines are good; they need to have a good appellation to be. I'd expect a lot of crappy wine to be sold overseas, trying to be popular just by being from France. Note also that decent French wine is really expensive outside of France. I'd recommend other origins if you're looking for something under the $30 mark.
Champagne is only allowed to be called champagne if it comes from a very small and specific region in France. If it's not from there, it's just sparkling wine.
France has a lot of protected labels like this: you may only call your product by a certain name if it is made in the right region, with the right ingredients, and the right processes.
Slashdot Mirror
I see you guys are trying to play French aren't you, going on strike and all that.
Now think about why you despise the French so much, and go back to work.
To make things safe, autonomous cares probably drive very slowly and only take the safest of decisions.
Which renders them quite useless, as not only do they take ages to take you from A to B, they slow down other people too.
They're also probably unable to deal with unexpected things or drivers not driving correctly. And finally, image recognition etc. is probably slower than human reaction time.
Until we can build machine that can best a racing driver and a track it doesn't know, this technology is worthless in my opinion.
There were people in the car, didn't you even read the summary?
Bloated code is unmaintenable.
Likewise, a bloated genome means it's hard to evolve.
Maybe that's why his next book is five years late?
Possibly. I download TV shows the day they air, but I have no other solution if I want to see those shows anyway since it might take years for them to ever arrive in my country, if they even do (and if they do, they're usually crippled with some horrible dubs).
is all you should ever need
I personally use one of those devices from Western Digital which are $50.
Why would you want to purchase crappy VoD services full of DRM and only providing a handful of stuff when you can get whatever you want and more in true high quality and without restrictions?
I still play Day of the Tentacle on my phone.
Are you as bad as the hiring consultants from the other fields of software development?
No need for a new branch of physics.
The infamous Orion nuclear-propulsion design, which is more than fifty years old now, could reach 10% of light speed using thermonuclear explosions and up to 80% of light speed using matter-antimatter pulses.
Of course, there are probably engineering problems to make it feasible; but not really fundamental physics ones.
I guess it's a matter of taste.
I personally found it to be the only book from all of Tolkien's work that was interesting.
The rest is highly overrated.
Doesn't sound like an efficient use of my time to talk of the same thing over and over without being ever able to fix it.
From a pragmatic point of view, it's a better idea to sit on it and move along.
Why would we have to restrict ourselves to a limiting behaviour when we don't need to?
The approach of changing our behaviour doesn't work. Take an example: we need wood, but trees are scarce. The solution is therefore simple: plant trees as we cut some. Not cutting trees, or cutting less trees, is no solution.
It's basically the approach humanity took when it moved from hunter-gatherers to farmers.
Just like we can farm to supply the demands for food, we can plant trees to supply the demand for CO2 reduction.
Maybe it doesn't need to run all that.
You don't purchase employees from private parties, for one. You hire them, and most countries have their own public schools to train those people and competitive exams to select them.
For paper, computers, facilities, they usually buy the cheapest offer that they're made.
For weapons, they tend to produce them themselves, since they're fairly sensitive material and not freely purchasable in most countries anyway.
You mean it's mandatory and often government-run.
There is no such thing as free health insurance.
The market you're in (fundamental christian) is sufficiently small that there will never be a big budget for a movie targeted at people like you.
Putting people from another state under trial using a juridical system outside of its jurisdiction does not make sense; it's a sham to justify oppression or murder, and people that feel they were oppressed need to oppress their oppressors to feel good again.
Whether the people did dubious things from a morality point of view is irrelevant. Morality is relative, and has as much its place in justice as religion does.
But war is quite nonsense anyway. Brainwashing of the winner has been fairly efficient, and people now believe that the morals of the winner are "justice" and that the loser is pure evil that should be removed. Somehow this translates into some kind of biased fanatical revenge justice and intolerance of morals that differ from the now-established winner's norm.
There is nothing particularly horrible about shooting deserters of all kinds. It has been done for thousands of years by everyone, often in a more gruesome manner than the GDR did.
Times of war or trouble involve keeping the population under control and check. More or less subtle propaganda, armed intervention and powerful police force, are the de-facto standard methods used to achieve this.
Killing people is "bad", but it may not seem as bad by people if it's used to achieve a purpose, such as establishing a new revolutionary order.
Before trying to take revenge on such people, from a humanitarian point of view, I think it is important to try to understand their morals and motivations.
I'm sorry, what crime are you talking about? The border guards did nothing illegal as far as the GDR law is concerned, since they were military personnel whose service consisted of preventing people to escape by any means necessary.
Putting them on a FRG trial many years afterwards is simply pure nonsense to satisfy crazy mobs. FRG law didn't apply in that region back then.
I know for a fact that at least one of the h265 proposals, the one from Nokia, Tandberg and Ericsson, does run in real-time, since we have it working on prototype videconferencing software.
Are you implying that there are some on the ground?
The very idea of using the cloud to render a FPS is preposterous and will never work in practice, for obvious latency reasons.
What about animal welfare?
Even within Belgium, there are different areas specialized in different kind of beers.
I don't know about Belgium, but I know that there are 57 different wine appellations in the region around the French city of Bordeaux alone.
Australian, Chilean, South African and Californian wines are better value for money than French ones.
No need to be a be a wine buff to realize that.
It is because the French cannot compete in terms of value for money that they want to protect their appellations.
What they can compete in is in terms of quality, and their Appellations d'Origine Contrôlée certify that the product matches what the name represents, providing quality control consumers have access to.
Now, that doesn't mean all French wines are good; they need to have a good appellation to be. I'd expect a lot of crappy wine to be sold overseas, trying to be popular just by being from France.
Note also that decent French wine is really expensive outside of France. I'd recommend other origins if you're looking for something under the $30 mark.
Champagne is only allowed to be called champagne if it comes from a very small and specific region in France. If it's not from there, it's just sparkling wine.
France has a lot of protected labels like this: you may only call your product by a certain name if it is made in the right region, with the right ingredients, and the right processes.