Well, rockstar games did hide content on the disk that is outside the rating.
Or did they simply practice poor content control. I know that when I'm programming, I often don't remove procedures and subs I'm not using anymore. Now, I'm making internal use programs in a one-man operation, so it isn't always a big deal, but it could have been the action of one programmer who removed just the mark for the content, but failed to remove the content(for whatever reason).
Given that it takes downloading a new binary, now does this differ from doing things like moding 'dirty content' into various games like the Sims, Counterstrike, DukeNukem3D, etc. Heck, real easy in counterstrike, simply import a small porn picture as your 'mark'. If somebody runs an open server, you can even spam others with it. I also remember one that replaced the hostages with 'swedish blondes'.
Um, read a little closer. I was talking about the period of 9600kbs modems. I don't know about you, but that was quite a while ago. It was an upgrade from the 2400 baud modem.
Baud, bits per second, of which it takes 8 to make a character. That's still 1,200 characters per second, knocked down to about 800 - 1000 if you knock out the with the formatting and control characters. Spaces, commas, paragraph return/linefeeds and such.
I know, because I couldn't read at the speed of the modem anymore when I finally got ahold of a 14.4k. I'll also note that I'm fully capable of reading your average paperback book in less than an hour.
I will admit to it taking a sustained effort to do so, and the processing/retention I was able to do was severly limited.
They spend more effort on it, I guess. I'm hardly a serious critic, but when I hear a squeaky Goku, or Minmay's singing, it's bad. Overacting abounds. The problem does tend to be less with the newer/more popular animes.
for me, i would have to have a far more enormous understanding of japanese culture and people and language to make such a distinction.
It helps if you understand the language of course. My knowledge of japanese is hardly encylopedic, so I often need the subtitles anyways. Then again, I often tend to turn on subtitles for english flicks as well. As for having a Phd, Anime is hardly Shakespeare, and many of the 'in-jokes' remain, even after dubbing. Remember, many titles are 'light' entertainment.
Oh, and I can read at 9600 baud, so reading the subtitles isn't a big deal to me.
Even so, I think I'd prefer dub, as long as the voice-acting is up to at least television standards. It's just that many of my early experiences were so bad that I tend to think of the subtitled version as the 'safe' one.
Actually, many of them probably watch it in the original English. After all, they teach the english language in school early enough for it to be usefull.
Subtitles are far cheaper than replacing the voices with *decent* voice talent, much less good talent. Also, dubbing is a more developed art for the other languages/countries. It's a relativly new thing for english.
I think you need to check your 'h' key. It's 'theoretically'
-Your friendly neighborhood spelling nazi.
On the other hand, I'll also say there's a big leap from 'theory' to 'practical'. We can't afford to wait for things that aren't even being prototyped in labs yet. At least we have hydrogen/ethanol fuel cells now.
Well, as I understand it, ethanol is about the best fuel for fuel cells that's liquid in normal earth ranges. It's substantially better than methanol. Remember, they're talking about using it to replace the batteries in cell phones, laptops, etc...
Exactly: It's simple enough. Walmart has cultivated an images as a 'family store'. They figure they'll loose more money from the prudes boycotting/avoiding them than they would from selling the material.
Add in that you have even more laws to worry about if you sell those materials.
And they'd promptly go broke, because the opium market would be saturated. Add in that opium production is a labor intensive process, it's not as productive as you might think.
It has a bit more than that. It sounds like your engine isn't tuned for it. In my area, ethanol fuel ranges from three to ten cents a gallon cheaper for a 10% mix. I wonder where you get the 15% stuff from?
I figured it out once, the break even point, assuming that your milage scales directly with energy density, was $2.73 a gallon, based on the price difference for 10% ethanol and regular at the local stations.
I should also note that it's possible to get better gas milage for the energy density, due to the higher octane rating of ethanol. Higher octane means you can run at a higher compression and more advanced timing, which leads to better efficiency. It requires a fairly major modification to the engine, though. If I could buy a car designed for it(So I don't have to pay thousands to have it done), I'd do so today. I'd have to fill up with at least mid-grade, but when mid-grade is cheaper?
Now, I've lived in the Cornhusker state, but I have to agree with you. Corn has always seemed to be a bit of a low-yeilder for ethanol compared to other crops.
Now, corn can be grown further north than sugarcane, so that might be a factor. Of course, if we could break ourselves of our sugar habit, we'd be able to fuel many vehicles off the saved sugar.
On a different point, a couple of seed/hybridization/GM companies are looking into making corn varieties designed for maximum ethanol production. They're predicting something like a 25% increase in about five years.
Oh, and my prediction:
Ethanol fuel cells. How would you like to get more milage out of ethanol than we do with today's vehicles with gasoline? We don't have to burn ethanol the traditional way, and it'd reduce what pollution ethanol has.
I think that the main problem with the increased pollution is that they haven't spent the research and tuning efforts into reducing it, and most ethanol cars today are adaptions of gasoline cars. Don't forget that ethanol also reduces or eliminates many other pollutants from gasoline, it's only in a couple that it increases.
Having been trained on the battlefield, emergency usage of quickclot, I agree. It's not going to be nice.
On the other hand, you're likely to be under anesthetic when they get around to it, seeing as how they'll be operating on the wound that caused your fellow soldiers to pour it on in the first place.
I mean, it comes into play after tournequit placement!
I can tell from your post you're citing military "made for public consumption" uniformed propaganda about how nice our bullets are.
I'm in the military, own my own AR15, and have examined reports about the effects of the rounds.
Actual balistic studies show that modern "M16" rifle ammo both tumble and fragment very quickly upon penetration. This has been shown in many gelatin studies, the gold standard, as well as battle field studies.
Well considering that we moved from the M16 quite some time ago, and are now on the M16A3, your studies might not be as 'modern' as you think. Did they refer to M855 or M193? The studies I've read show that M193(the earlier round) showed these tendencies far more often than M855, which is a heavier, more solidly constructed, and faster spinning round(when shot out of the A3).
"FMJ" and "ball" are terms you seem stuck on, ascribing some magical quality to.
These are two very standard descriptions for a bullet. FMJ Ball is pretty much the anti-thesis of 'special'.
BTW: that was just totally idiotic. Morons should not try and explain physics. Here's a clue for you: rifles buffer and dissipate much of the energy they release upon firing, so the person firing it does not receive 100% energy released or even close. The muzzle design, the cocking mechanism, etc all of those dissapate energy. If they didn't it would break your shoulder smart guy.
Automatic actions do lengthen the duration of the recoil. They don't dissipate it. On the other hand, I own a bolt action rifle in.300 Weatherby Magnum. It fires a round weighing more than twice as much about 50% faster than what comes out of a M16. It doesn't have a buffer spring, the action doesn't move when it shoots, etc. It's effectivly a solid object when I pull the trigger. It doesn't break my shoulder, though it does kick substantially harder than a M16. It still doesn't have the power to physically knock a person down. If you're going to get that nitpicky, have you considered wind friction draining momentum from the bullet as it travels?
The person receiving the bullet does receive 100% of the energy included in the impact.
Not if it punches all the way through, which happens frequently with M855.
Um, actually the treaty is for calibers 'larger' than.50 caliber. As long as you're a half inch or less, you're good to go. I don't remember seeing the one about grenades.
I think that I should also point out that it's the Hague Conventions that prohibit expanding bullets, and the US never ratified it. We just follow it to be nice.
The same with a number of other 'prohibitions'. The USA hasn't signed many of them.
And finally, how many people realize that we could of summarily shot most of the people in Gitmo? That it takes no legal action to hold a POW until the conflict is ended?
In order to improve accuracy, most guns today are of the 'rifled' variety. This means that there are grooves on the inside that force the bullet to spin as it travels through the barrel. This stabilizes the bullet, making sure it doesn't tumble during the flight, which wrecks accuracy as forces on the bullet are no longer consistant. The rate of the grooving is refered to as "Twist Rate" which is generally referred to as "1 in x", which means 1 rotation in x inches.
Old style M16's have an unusually slow twist rate in it's rifling(1 in 12). It was designed to fire a light 55 grain bullet. This means that the light round was barely stabilized. New M16A2's have a 1 in 7 twist, needed to stabilize the heavier M855 5.56mm round.
Especially in the older style, within certain ranges, the rounds had a tendency to loose stability when it hit something, such as a body, and begin to tumble, then fragment. This is the increased damage that you refer to.
As for the parent - the rounds currently deployed to the US Army for their M16s are intended to tear an opponent apart, since an opponent who dies instantly can't continue to fight injured, or worse, charge and set off a bomb.
While many troops are clamoring for a more effective round(IE something larger than a.22), there are arguements that against the unarmoured targets being encountered in the desert, the current M855 is less effective than the old M193 ball
They're also built to knock the target off their feet to prevent a charging enemy.
I'll refer you to mythbusters on this one. I'll just point out that a 5.56 round has less momentum than a thrown softball.
M-16 rounds are nasty - they have a hollowed out section on one side so that upon a collision, they drastically change shape.
Absolutely, utterly false. If you have a 'hollowed out section' on one side, the bullet is no longer symetric, and accuracy is lost. Remember, the M-16 is considered good against point targets(IE people), with aimed fire out to 300 yards.
People who get shot in the arms with an M-16 will lose the arm, go into shock (and thus completely exit the battle) and almost certainly die shortly thereafter.
Nope, Nope, and Nope. While you certainly can have 'golden BB's'*, they're fairly rare. Many terrorists and insurgents in the region don't go down until they have six to twelve rounds put into them. There are people to have taken six to the chest and survived. Death afterwards is generally the result of lack of competent medical care afterwards allowing them to bleed to death.
*A shot that does far more damage than you'd expect from round size and general shot placement.
Another thing to realize for back then, was that people were more willing and equipped to defend themselves. The old using a shotgun to run off a burgler or trespasser. People in the '50's were harder targets in many ways.
That and many crimes just didn't get reported, or were ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, rockstar games did hide content on the disk that is outside the rating.
Or did they simply practice poor content control. I know that when I'm programming, I often don't remove procedures and subs I'm not using anymore. Now, I'm making internal use programs in a one-man operation, so it isn't always a big deal, but it could have been the action of one programmer who removed just the mark for the content, but failed to remove the content(for whatever reason).
Given that it takes downloading a new binary, now does this differ from doing things like moding 'dirty content' into various games like the Sims, Counterstrike, DukeNukem3D, etc. Heck, real easy in counterstrike, simply import a small porn picture as your 'mark'. If somebody runs an open server, you can even spam others with it. I also remember one that replaced the hostages with 'swedish blondes'.
How about calling 911 three, four times a week, for four months?
;)
Of course, I was calling a low-usage 911 line to make sure that it was still operational, and the operator was doing his/her job...
I have never actually had to call 911 for an emergency.
Did they verify that the passwords were correct?
I mean, you offer me a candy bar for my password, you're going to get one.
1..2..3..ummm..4?
A problem with this is that my car's AC takes less than a MPG.
So how the heck can I get more gas milage with this system, than with no AC at all?
Um, read a little closer. I was talking about the period of 9600kbs modems. I don't know about you, but that was quite a while ago. It was an upgrade from the 2400 baud modem.
Could be worse, too. I was given some money and a boxtop, and told to bike down to the store to get it. Oh, and you can rent a movie too.
Look at it this way. It tends to indicate that you're at least getting some.
Baud, bits per second, of which it takes 8 to make a character. That's still 1,200 characters per second, knocked down to about 800 - 1000 if you knock out the with the formatting and control characters. Spaces, commas, paragraph return/linefeeds and such.
I know, because I couldn't read at the speed of the modem anymore when I finally got ahold of a 14.4k. I'll also note that I'm fully capable of reading your average paperback book in less than an hour.
I will admit to it taking a sustained effort to do so, and the processing/retention I was able to do was severly limited.
in what way is japanese voice acting superior?
They spend more effort on it, I guess. I'm hardly a serious critic, but when I hear a squeaky Goku, or Minmay's singing, it's bad. Overacting abounds. The problem does tend to be less with the newer/more popular animes.
for me, i would have to have a far more enormous understanding of japanese culture and people and language to make such a distinction.
It helps if you understand the language of course. My knowledge of japanese is hardly encylopedic, so I often need the subtitles anyways. Then again, I often tend to turn on subtitles for english flicks as well. As for having a Phd, Anime is hardly Shakespeare, and many of the 'in-jokes' remain, even after dubbing. Remember, many titles are 'light' entertainment.
Oh, and I can read at 9600 baud, so reading the subtitles isn't a big deal to me.
Even so, I think I'd prefer dub, as long as the voice-acting is up to at least television standards. It's just that many of my early experiences were so bad that I tend to think of the subtitled version as the 'safe' one.
Actually, many of them probably watch it in the original English. After all, they teach the english language in school early enough for it to be usefull.
Subtitles are far cheaper than replacing the voices with *decent* voice talent, much less good talent. Also, dubbing is a more developed art for the other languages/countries. It's a relativly new thing for english.
I've heard good dubs, and I've seen bad subtitles.
I'll just say that, on average, I feel the japanese voice-acting is far superior to the english voice-acting.
The english Goku is annoying, robotech is painful.
On the other hand, english Hellsing is good. Some of the Tenchi stuff isn't bad.
I think you need to check your 'h' key. It's 'theoretically'
-Your friendly neighborhood spelling nazi.
On the other hand, I'll also say there's a big leap from 'theory' to 'practical'. We can't afford to wait for things that aren't even being prototyped in labs yet. At least we have hydrogen/ethanol fuel cells now.
Well, as I understand it, ethanol is about the best fuel for fuel cells that's liquid in normal earth ranges. It's substantially better than methanol. Remember, they're talking about using it to replace the batteries in cell phones, laptops, etc...
Exactly: It's simple enough. Walmart has cultivated an images as a 'family store'. They figure they'll loose more money from the prudes boycotting/avoiding them than they would from selling the material.
Add in that you have even more laws to worry about if you sell those materials.
And they'd promptly go broke, because the opium market would be saturated. Add in that opium production is a labor intensive process, it's not as productive as you might think.
It has a bit more than that. It sounds like your engine isn't tuned for it. In my area, ethanol fuel ranges from three to ten cents a gallon cheaper for a 10% mix. I wonder where you get the 15% stuff from?
I figured it out once, the break even point, assuming that your milage scales directly with energy density, was $2.73 a gallon, based on the price difference for 10% ethanol and regular at the local stations.
I should also note that it's possible to get better gas milage for the energy density, due to the higher octane rating of ethanol. Higher octane means you can run at a higher compression and more advanced timing, which leads to better efficiency. It requires a fairly major modification to the engine, though. If I could buy a car designed for it(So I don't have to pay thousands to have it done), I'd do so today. I'd have to fill up with at least mid-grade, but when mid-grade is cheaper?
Now, I've lived in the Cornhusker state, but I have to agree with you. Corn has always seemed to be a bit of a low-yeilder for ethanol compared to other crops.
Now, corn can be grown further north than sugarcane, so that might be a factor. Of course, if we could break ourselves of our sugar habit, we'd be able to fuel many vehicles off the saved sugar.
On a different point, a couple of seed/hybridization/GM companies are looking into making corn varieties designed for maximum ethanol production. They're predicting something like a 25% increase in about five years.
Oh, and my prediction:
Ethanol fuel cells. How would you like to get more milage out of ethanol than we do with today's vehicles with gasoline? We don't have to burn ethanol the traditional way, and it'd reduce what pollution ethanol has.
I think that the main problem with the increased pollution is that they haven't spent the research and tuning efforts into reducing it, and most ethanol cars today are adaptions of gasoline cars. Don't forget that ethanol also reduces or eliminates many other pollutants from gasoline, it's only in a couple that it increases.
Why wouldn't it? It's not like they're eating it.
Because I can make a bullet for about 10 cents from fish weights, car tire weights, etc.
This stuff will also be useful in case of industrial, car, construction, etc.
Having been trained on the battlefield, emergency usage of quickclot, I agree. It's not going to be nice.
On the other hand, you're likely to be under anesthetic when they get around to it, seeing as how they'll be operating on the wound that caused your fellow soldiers to pour it on in the first place.
I mean, it comes into play after tournequit placement!
I think it acts like adding more clotting factor to the blood. It's like a concentrated clotting agent.
I can tell from your post you're citing military "made for public consumption" uniformed propaganda about how nice our bullets are.
.300 Weatherby Magnum. It fires a round weighing more than twice as much about 50% faster than what comes out of a M16. It doesn't have a buffer spring, the action doesn't move when it shoots, etc. It's effectivly a solid object when I pull the trigger. It doesn't break my shoulder, though it does kick substantially harder than a M16. It still doesn't have the power to physically knock a person down. If you're going to get that nitpicky, have you considered wind friction draining momentum from the bullet as it travels?
I'm in the military, own my own AR15, and have examined reports about the effects of the rounds.
Actual balistic studies show that modern "M16" rifle ammo both tumble and fragment very quickly upon penetration. This has been shown in many gelatin studies, the gold standard, as well as battle field studies.
Well considering that we moved from the M16 quite some time ago, and are now on the M16A3, your studies might not be as 'modern' as you think. Did they refer to M855 or M193? The studies I've read show that M193(the earlier round) showed these tendencies far more often than M855, which is a heavier, more solidly constructed, and faster spinning round(when shot out of the A3).
"FMJ" and "ball" are terms you seem stuck on, ascribing some magical quality to.
These are two very standard descriptions for a bullet. FMJ Ball is pretty much the anti-thesis of 'special'.
BTW: that was just totally idiotic. Morons should not try and explain physics. Here's a clue for you: rifles buffer and dissipate much of the energy they release upon firing, so the person firing it does not receive 100% energy released or even close. The muzzle design, the cocking mechanism, etc all of those dissapate energy. If they didn't it would break your shoulder smart guy.
Automatic actions do lengthen the duration of the recoil. They don't dissipate it. On the other hand, I own a bolt action rifle in
The person receiving the bullet does receive 100% of the energy included in the impact.
Not if it punches all the way through, which happens frequently with M855.
Um, actually the treaty is for calibers 'larger' than .50 caliber. As long as you're a half inch or less, you're good to go. I don't remember seeing the one about grenades.
I think that I should also point out that it's the Hague Conventions that prohibit expanding bullets, and the US never ratified it. We just follow it to be nice.
The same with a number of other 'prohibitions'. The USA hasn't signed many of them.
And finally, how many people realize that we could of summarily shot most of the people in Gitmo? That it takes no legal action to hold a POW until the conflict is ended?
In order to improve accuracy, most guns today are of the 'rifled' variety. This means that there are grooves on the inside that force the bullet to spin as it travels through the barrel. This stabilizes the bullet, making sure it doesn't tumble during the flight, which wrecks accuracy as forces on the bullet are no longer consistant. The rate of the grooving is refered to as "Twist Rate" which is generally referred to as "1 in x", which means 1 rotation in x inches.
.22), there are arguements that against the unarmoured targets being encountered in the desert, the current M855 is less effective than the old M193 ball
Old style M16's have an unusually slow twist rate in it's rifling(1 in 12). It was designed to fire a light 55 grain bullet. This means that the light round was barely stabilized. New M16A2's have a 1 in 7 twist, needed to stabilize the heavier M855 5.56mm round.
Especially in the older style, within certain ranges, the rounds had a tendency to loose stability when it hit something, such as a body, and begin to tumble, then fragment. This is the increased damage that you refer to.
As for the parent -
the rounds currently deployed to the US Army for their M16s are intended to tear an opponent apart, since an opponent who dies instantly can't continue to fight injured, or worse, charge and set off a bomb.
While many troops are clamoring for a more effective round(IE something larger than a
They're also built to knock the target off their feet to prevent a charging enemy.
I'll refer you to mythbusters on this one. I'll just point out that a 5.56 round has less momentum than a thrown softball.
M-16 rounds are nasty - they have a hollowed out section on one side so that upon a collision, they drastically change shape.
Absolutely, utterly false. If you have a 'hollowed out section' on one side, the bullet is no longer symetric, and accuracy is lost. Remember, the M-16 is considered good against point targets(IE people), with aimed fire out to 300 yards.
People who get shot in the arms with an M-16 will lose the arm, go into shock (and thus completely exit the battle) and almost certainly die shortly thereafter.
Nope, Nope, and Nope. While you certainly can have 'golden BB's'*, they're fairly rare. Many terrorists and insurgents in the region don't go down until they have six to twelve rounds put into them. There are people to have taken six to the chest and survived. Death afterwards is generally the result of lack of competent medical care afterwards allowing them to bleed to death.
*A shot that does far more damage than you'd expect from round size and general shot placement.
Another thing to realize for back then, was that people were more willing and equipped to defend themselves. The old using a shotgun to run off a burgler or trespasser. People in the '50's were harder targets in many ways.
That and many crimes just didn't get reported, or were ignored.