Failed economically, not physically. The list is about poorly-designed aircraft, and as I recall the Concorde *flew* perfectly fine--it was the *landing* part that was the problem;-)
I didn't really see how they could put *half* the planes in that article under "worst ever."
The Albacore was almost as good as its predecessor, implying that it was an entirely decent plane, just that the project itself not serving as a replacement was rather pointless.
The He-162 had manufacturing defects and an insane pilot training program but would otherwise have been fine.
They never even mentioned what was "wrong" with the Me-163. Granted, it was a crazy aircraft, but it more or less worked for the purposes they intended it for. It was vulnerable to "bouncing" on landing, but the same problem applied to the Me-262, which did quite well. Hell, the 163 was one of the *successful* insane plane ideas Germany had, and they had a LOT of them.
According to Wikipedia, the Devastator, "ordered in 1934, it first flew in 1935 and entered service in 1937. At that point, it was the most advanced aircraft flying for the USN and possibly for any navy in the world. However, the fast pace of aircraft development quickly caught up with it, and by the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the TBD was already outdated." So not a failure at all by design, or even its initial deployment, apparently.
A lot of these fall under the "hindsight is 20-20" rule, too.
How would you feel if China or Russia developed some new technology that allowed them to listen to all of your phone calls and then they went about doing just that?
If it would get my country to stop monitoring me, meh; I'd take the trade-off. The heck is Russia or China going to care about my life?
Go watch Primer a couple times and then come back and see if you still want to ask that question.
I suspect why everyone gets pissed at this question--assuming it's not just a knee-jerk anti-creationism reaction--is that the question doesn't really "mean" anything. It's like asking someone, "Who was phone?" There's at least one model that posits that ball or some version of the universe has "always been there."
Plus, isn't talking about "before the big bang" paradoxical since time itself technically didn't exist "then"?
I was under the impression that the big bang needed conditions that would no longer exist in our post-bang universe (absence of time or something...), which would preclude further big bangs in our light cone. Although presumably they could still happen "outside" the universe?
Come on, DICE: If you're going to troll us with articles, at least try to make it a bit more subtle. This one basically reads as "Evolution is best science EVARRRR!!"
It not only accounting for phenomena
Glad to see the editors we know and love are still living up to the high standards we set for them, too.
We could just use "I'm not" instead of "I amn't." If we're going to mangle it, let's at least do it in a logical, predictable manner, yeah...or else we end up learning that half the verb conjugations in German are Regular and the other half...well, a lot of them are just random vowel replacements (although you could observe there's something of a "sub-regular" shift, too).
You do raise a good point about "won't." I hadn't noticed that before....I don't understand "if I were the king of the world" either. Why isn't it "if I was?" You don't say "I were going to bed," but "I was going to bed." Maybe it would help if we had an actual different-sounding conjugation of it.
Hypothetical case is all crazy-like in German too from what I remember, though, so apparently it's not just us. And "sie" can mean any of "they," "her," or "you (polite)" depending on conjugation clues and capitalization, so hey.
You're not supposed to have to study for these damn tests, and you're not supposed to copy the test material, but that's exactly what teachers are making students do.
It struck me in college that studying for tests is a fundamentally flawed idea. Really, all tests should be given at random intervals to demonstrate that you actually are learning the material. If you don't know when the test will be, you don't know when to cram.
Of course, that would be a huge inconvenience for the teachers, unfortunately. Some professors like to write the test once and rotate between 3 different sets of wordings, and just fudge the coefficients around when they loop back.
To say this has "nothing to do with the purpose of copyright" seems pretty blatantly false. The legal framework is supposed to prevent you from modifying the game them distributing the modification. The hack is (I'm assuming) being distributed, allowing the player to *then* modify the game, which admittedly would mean it's not really violating the rules, if true, but it is very much in the same area of legal consideration.
Lucky for us, you don't get to decide what is free speech. [...] It's not worth harming my constitutional freedoms just so you can be less annoyed.
As has been said here before, the Bill of Rights only applies to your interactions with the government. You bought the product of a private commercial entity, agreed to their terms of service (and also, unfortunately, probably their right to change them at any time as they see fit), and then blatantly violate that agreement and claim free speech grounds? Really??
Yes, EULAs suck. But this is not a free speech violation at all. And pulling out the excuse "I should be allowed to fuck up other people's game experience because IT'S MORE FREEDOM FOR ME!!!" is an asshole argument. Maybe YOU want the multiplayer to devolve into rampant cheating by everyone, but I bet most people don't.
Blizzard should handle this in the code. It's not that hard. 10 years ago I remember hearing at a conference about on-line gaming "If their client has the data, they have the data. You cannot trust the client, ever." It's as true now as it was then.
Umm...aren't winning a court case and settling out of court mutually exclusive? Or do you mean, they win a case to set the precedent and then everyone from that point on takes the wise choice and settles?
I always wonder when somebody says "just compress before you send it to speed up" how long it takes to do the actual compression. If we're just talking text, I suppose not long, but...
You have a weird definition of "a few." I count at least 11, not including the dangerously large-sounding "effects." 7000 * 12 is 84KB. Not "a few KB" either.
I guess it all depends on how often of a refresh we're talking, though. It is 2014 after all (although our U.S. bandwidth apparently sucks by comparison to the rest of the developed world).
Agreed. And I'm wondering why they thought if they requested data on a single user and he said no, increasing their demands to all his users would meet with more success.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the part where the glue would give way and the plane would come apart in midair. I challenge any pilot to handle that.
Failed economically, not physically. The list is about poorly-designed aircraft, and as I recall the Concorde *flew* perfectly fine--it was the *landing* part that was the problem ;-)
I didn't really see how they could put *half* the planes in that article under "worst ever."
The Albacore was almost as good as its predecessor, implying that it was an entirely decent plane, just that the project itself not serving as a replacement was rather pointless.
The He-162 had manufacturing defects and an insane pilot training program but would otherwise have been fine.
They never even mentioned what was "wrong" with the Me-163. Granted, it was a crazy aircraft, but it more or less worked for the purposes they intended it for. It was vulnerable to "bouncing" on landing, but the same problem applied to the Me-262, which did quite well. Hell, the 163 was one of the *successful* insane plane ideas Germany had, and they had a LOT of them.
According to Wikipedia, the Devastator, "ordered in 1934, it first flew in 1935 and entered service in 1937. At that point, it was the most advanced aircraft flying for the USN and possibly for any navy in the world. However, the fast pace of aircraft development quickly caught up with it, and by the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the TBD was already outdated." So not a failure at all by design, or even its initial deployment, apparently.
A lot of these fall under the "hindsight is 20-20" rule, too.
How would you feel if China or Russia developed some new technology that allowed them to listen to all of your phone calls and then they went about doing just that?
If it would get my country to stop monitoring me, meh; I'd take the trade-off. The heck is Russia or China going to care about my life?
Go watch Primer a couple times and then come back and see if you still want to ask that question.
I suspect why everyone gets pissed at this question--assuming it's not just a knee-jerk anti-creationism reaction--is that the question doesn't really "mean" anything. It's like asking someone, "Who was phone?" There's at least one model that posits that ball or some version of the universe has "always been there."
Plus, isn't talking about "before the big bang" paradoxical since time itself technically didn't exist "then"?
#quitepossiblycompletelyfullofcrap
I was under the impression that the big bang needed conditions that would no longer exist in our post-bang universe (absence of time or something...), which would preclude further big bangs in our light cone. Although presumably they could still happen "outside" the universe?
Come on, DICE: If you're going to troll us with articles, at least try to make it a bit more subtle. This one basically reads as "Evolution is best science EVARRRR!!"
It not only accounting for phenomena
Glad to see the editors we know and love are still living up to the high standards we set for them, too.
We could just use "I'm not" instead of "I amn't." If we're going to mangle it, let's at least do it in a logical, predictable manner, yeah...or else we end up learning that half the verb conjugations in German are Regular and the other half...well, a lot of them are just random vowel replacements (although you could observe there's something of a "sub-regular" shift, too).
You do raise a good point about "won't." I hadn't noticed that before....I don't understand "if I were the king of the world" either. Why isn't it "if I was?" You don't say "I were going to bed," but "I was going to bed." Maybe it would help if we had an actual different-sounding conjugation of it.
Hypothetical case is all crazy-like in German too from what I remember, though, so apparently it's not just us. And "sie" can mean any of "they," "her," or "you (polite)" depending on conjugation clues and capitalization, so hey.
You're not supposed to have to study for these damn tests, and you're not supposed to copy the test material, but that's exactly what teachers are making students do.
It struck me in college that studying for tests is a fundamentally flawed idea. Really, all tests should be given at random intervals to demonstrate that you actually are learning the material. If you don't know when the test will be, you don't know when to cram.
Of course, that would be a huge inconvenience for the teachers, unfortunately. Some professors like to write the test once and rotate between 3 different sets of wordings, and just fudge the coefficients around when they loop back.
So you're saying that they're actually getting the same or higher scores than whites/whoever?
Just because something correlates to racial boundaries does not make pointing it out racist.
Why wouldn't Europe be a continent? Because it's attached to Asia?
By that definition, there's only 4 continents--America, AfroEurAsia, Australia, and Antartica.
Massage your sample enough and you can prove anything.
"They didn't actually do anything wrong but should be punished for it anyway"
You generally don't have the right to modify and then distribute if the license doesn't allow you to is what you mean.
To say this has "nothing to do with the purpose of copyright" seems pretty blatantly false. The legal framework is supposed to prevent you from modifying the game them distributing the modification. The hack is (I'm assuming) being distributed, allowing the player to *then* modify the game, which admittedly would mean it's not really violating the rules, if true, but it is very much in the same area of legal consideration.
Lucky for us, you don't get to decide what is free speech. [...] It's not worth harming my constitutional freedoms just so you can be less annoyed.
As has been said here before, the Bill of Rights only applies to your interactions with the government. You bought the product of a private commercial entity, agreed to their terms of service (and also, unfortunately, probably their right to change them at any time as they see fit), and then blatantly violate that agreement and claim free speech grounds? Really??
Yes, EULAs suck. But this is not a free speech violation at all. And pulling out the excuse "I should be allowed to fuck up other people's game experience because IT'S MORE FREEDOM FOR ME!!!" is an asshole argument. Maybe YOU want the multiplayer to devolve into rampant cheating by everyone, but I bet most people don't.
Blizzard should handle this in the code. It's not that hard. 10 years ago I remember hearing at a conference about on-line gaming "If their client has the data, they have the data. You cannot trust the client, ever." It's as true now as it was then.
...is admittedly a good point, however.
Unless you fire it out of the supermarket through an open window or something, you're directly damaging the property of the supermarket owner, though.
And, y'know, all those other bits about disturbing the peace and whatnot the cops will tell you you're being arrested for.
The cases don't settle until they have won.
Umm...aren't winning a court case and settling out of court mutually exclusive? Or do you mean, they win a case to set the precedent and then everyone from that point on takes the wise choice and settles?
I always wonder when somebody says "just compress before you send it to speed up" how long it takes to do the actual compression. If we're just talking text, I suppose not long, but...
You have a weird definition of "a few." I count at least 11, not including the dangerously large-sounding "effects." 7000 * 12 is 84KB. Not "a few KB" either.
I guess it all depends on how often of a refresh we're talking, though. It is 2014 after all (although our U.S. bandwidth apparently sucks by comparison to the rest of the developed world).
It must have been sealed by an NSA gag order.
I've been saying for a couple years now, "If you can't find a reason to drink, you're not paying attention."
Agreed. And I'm wondering why they thought if they requested data on a single user and he said no, increasing their demands to all his users would meet with more success.
The last officially declared war by Congress was World War II.
+1 First Good Argument Involving the 3rd Amendment I've Ever Heard