The sad thing is yesterday when driving home from work there was a cop in the other lane next to me texting while driving, the funny part about it was he had a neon blue smart phone cover.
Yeah, but they're allowed to run you down and kill you if they're checking work email while driving so I'm sure texting is perfectly fine.
So you've got one of these new iPhones and you've checked it?
Do you really think that Tim Cook is going to go on stage in front of literally millions of viewers and say that if it isn't true?
You DO realize, of course, that while it is not "verifiable" at this point, it will be in about a month.
'That's how we planned to do it at the time but because of reasons we had to change it' Look at the xbox 180. I'm not saying that it isn't going to work exactly the way they said or the opposite, only pointing that because the boss said something in front of millions of people doesn't set it in stone.
The BBC is essentially a well-funded mouthpiece of the British Government.
I find it best to ignore them and look for less-biased news sources.
(Or at least to counter-balance the news with sources that don't have British affiliations.)
The BBC are constantly slagging off the government.
There's also cultural influence to consider. English being known throughout the world is more a result of Hollywood/The Internet coming out of the US than it is old British Imperialism (assuming you don't count the fact that America itself exists as a result of that). I don't think Britain is interested in being a world power again, but if they want to, increasing the influence of their culture over the rest of the world is an important part of it.
Wait a sec, are you saying English language is widely spoken because of Hollywood and the internet? Is that seriously what you're saying?
Or more importantly contact you local member. Contrary to popular belief, politicians will listen, you just have to put it across the right way (ideally with the support of some local industry heavyweights)
I would be very surprised if my local mp knew what the bbc was let alone vpn.
Not everyone is 6' 1" and not every seat should be designed to accommodate someone who is 6' 1".
That's like saying not everyone drives cars so we only need to make your garage wide enough for a bike. If a product accepts things of multiple sizes it should be big enough to accommodate the biggest, pretty simple really.
Hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that could hit an american supercarrier
Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.
Better keep them away from supercaviataing torpedoes, a carrier's true worst nightmare. Russia has had one since the late 70's. Iran has them too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
A supercavitating torpedo is a hail mary weapon or a "you fired first" weapon. Cavitation is noisy and is what anyone firing such a weapon would generally want to avoid. It also blinds the torpedo since there is air in front of it instead of water. So they have to be remotely controlled by wire.
Nothing screams "I'M RIGHT HERE!!! IT WAS ME WHO FIRED THAT TORPEDO!!!" like a supercavitating torpedo. It is little better than a kamikaze attack if used offensively.
True, they're not exactly stealthy or extremely practical, there would more than a handful if they were, but regardless point one or more in the right direction at the right time and some big ships are going to start having a bad time.
Hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that could hit an american supercarrier
Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.
Better keep them away from supercaviataing torpedoes, a carrier's true worst nightmare. Russia has had one since the late 70's. Iran has them too.
five hundred incoming rockets, drones, torpedoes, remote-controlled boats, and tiny speedboats... Total cost of the attack, let's be extravagant and say one thousand dollars.
"But by and large, they like it because it is so conservative. "
This was always nonsense with regards to multiplayer quake, carmack and company wrote the book on how to design internet games. Quake with mods invented many of the genre's staples. What people loved about quake was the multiplayer, the single player was always phoned in. Quake never had a real good single player campaign or compelling universe, the good single player stopped with Doom for iD software, and you could see it in rage that they never really learned from other games that did it better.
Personally I thought Quake 2 had a great single player.
Why is it "insulting the entire gender" to say "gosh, you might want to consider whether using dead female bodies posed in necrophilic-erotic positions is really a healthy or appropriate thing to do." Personally I find it insulting to my gender that the creators of the game thing I would willingly tolerate such imagery. Essentially what the game producers are saying is "men are brutes with no compassion, let's pander to that." It's disgusting and insulting.
If your talking about the hitman bit, that was purely fabricated by her. She picks a game that you can do that to anybody, male or female, picks a very small section in a strip club where you're stopping a sexploitation ring, then kills them and drags them around the floor like that's the whole point of the game. Watch any playthrough of that level on youtube and practically everyone completely ignores them other than mention one of them will move later to a place you need to be so watch out and sneaks on past. She filmed that part purely to exaggerate the point that was completely made up to begin with.
"Essentially what the game producers are saying is "men are brutes with no compassion, let's pander to that." It's disgusting and insulting." No, that's what she's saying they're saying and basically she's saying YOU are a brute with no compassion and love nothing more than fantasising about dragging female corpses around and putting them in boxes. That is what is disgusting and insulting.
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
An internet troll spewing shit on the comments is about as credible a death threat as saying you'll kill someone when you find out they ate the last biscuit.
Yes, let's kept paying the crony capitalists lest we be left defenseless. So many people have been nonchalant about the economic damage this system has caused to our country, so I can only hope the security damage is more successful in grabbing their attention.
Even if this project met its goals, it would still be extremely underwhelming... especially on cost-benefit analysis. Starting over is the right choice.
If cost is what your concerned with the best bet is buying in, get some eurofighters or a mig/sukoi combo. Imagine how well that would go down.
I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.
The only excuse for disabling that is intentional malice or extreme incompetence. Ubisoft has a history of either of those in regards to PC gamers. If it were an isolated event, I'd go with incompetence, but this is no longer coincidence. I'm pretty sure it's malice due to it's repetition. l
It's PC so they get to use the 'ensuring optimum quality for all users' line as cover for the bullshots.
Q: if there was a human dumb savant who could translate instantly between multiple languages, though without understanding how he did it (think Rainman), would you say he was not intelligent? Why? What is intelligence? We are inconsistent - we praise humans as intelligent when they can perform some complex algorithm well (chess), and yet as soon as a computer beats a human, or all humans, we denigrate the task as "not intelligence". Often the reason is "just an algorithm", but as a neuroscientist knows, that is a poor excuse - it's algorithms all the way down.
Not in the sense you're implying, he'd be a gifted idiot. Extremely good at one specific thing but not a lot else. Is a dog intelligent? You could argue both sides for forever and a day.
The guy in your Chinese room may be intelligent, but other than matching symbols he is not displaying or using it.
Nope, not following instructions. I think all of those were based in machine learning.
I guess Google's car is following instructions too, like "drive me to New York", but most would still count that as AI.
How is that AI? It looks up the route (no one would say a sat nav device is AI) combined with autonomous operation from sensor input (no one would say a UAV or plane on autopilot is AI).
And AI is still, pardon my French, pretty fucking non-existent.
Except for the cell phone in your pocket, that can recognize your commands and search the internet for what you requested, or translate your statement into any of a dozen foreign languages, and has a camera that can recognize faces, and millions of objects, and can connect to expert systems that can, for instance, diagnose diseases better than all but the very best doctors. Oh, and your cellphone can also beat any grandmaster in the world at chess.
However, if you consider AI to be shorthand for "stuff computers can't do yet", then, yes, AI will always be "right around the corner".
Until I can have a genuine conversation with my phone that isn't just looking up responses based on my inputs and can actually understand what a conversation is about (i.e not a chatbot, not siri) then it's not AI.
Several airlines now have in-flight WiFi and while the bandwidth is crappy, you could use it for VOIP. The two airlines I have flown on that have this (Lufthansa and United) both expressly forbid the use of Skype and voice apps for the very reason you state - it annoys other passengers.
Here's what Lufthansa has to say about it:
The option of making mobile phone calls has been disabled in response to the wishes of a majority of our customers. In addition, customers are advised that Internet telephony (VOIP) is likewise not permitted.
And United:
It is against United policy to allow videoconferencing or voice communications in flight. Live video and Internet streaming services are not supported.
I have the same concerns you do, but this is one thing the airlines so far have gotten right.
I never understood this, I can chat to the guy next to me, even over the aisle and no one gives a shit. Put it on a phone and everyone freaks out. Is it because you can only evesdrop and half my conversation than annoys you so much?
Who was the guy who said it interrupts him watching videos? Maybe we don't want to listen to what ever shit you happen to be watching, also that's what headphones are for fuckwit.
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is yesterday when driving home from work there was a cop in the other lane next to me texting while driving, the funny part about it was he had a neon blue smart phone cover.
Yeah, but they're allowed to run you down and kill you if they're checking work email while driving so I'm sure texting is perfectly fine.
So you've got one of these new iPhones and you've checked it?
Do you really think that Tim Cook is going to go on stage in front of literally millions of viewers and say that if it isn't true? You DO realize, of course, that while it is not "verifiable" at this point, it will be in about a month.
'That's how we planned to do it at the time but because of reasons we had to change it' Look at the xbox 180. I'm not saying that it isn't going to work exactly the way they said or the opposite, only pointing that because the boss said something in front of millions of people doesn't set it in stone.
The BBC is essentially a well-funded mouthpiece of the British Government.
I find it best to ignore them and look for less-biased news sources. (Or at least to counter-balance the news with sources that don't have British affiliations.)
The BBC are constantly slagging off the government.
There's also cultural influence to consider. English being known throughout the world is more a result of Hollywood/The Internet coming out of the US than it is old British Imperialism (assuming you don't count the fact that America itself exists as a result of that). I don't think Britain is interested in being a world power again, but if they want to, increasing the influence of their culture over the rest of the world is an important part of it.
Wait a sec, are you saying English language is widely spoken because of Hollywood and the internet? Is that seriously what you're saying?
Or more importantly contact you local member. Contrary to popular belief, politicians will listen, you just have to put it across the right way (ideally with the support of some local industry heavyweights)
I would be very surprised if my local mp knew what the bbc was let alone vpn.
Not everyone is 6' 1" and not every seat should be designed to accommodate someone who is 6' 1".
That's like saying not everyone drives cars so we only need to make your garage wide enough for a bike. If a product accepts things of multiple sizes it should be big enough to accommodate the biggest, pretty simple really.
Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.
Better keep them away from supercaviataing torpedoes, a carrier's true worst nightmare. Russia has had one since the late 70's. Iran has them too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
A supercavitating torpedo is a hail mary weapon or a "you fired first" weapon. Cavitation is noisy and is what anyone firing such a weapon would generally want to avoid. It also blinds the torpedo since there is air in front of it instead of water. So they have to be remotely controlled by wire. Nothing screams "I'M RIGHT HERE!!! IT WAS ME WHO FIRED THAT TORPEDO!!!" like a supercavitating torpedo. It is little better than a kamikaze attack if used offensively.
True, they're not exactly stealthy or extremely practical, there would more than a handful if they were, but regardless point one or more in the right direction at the right time and some big ships are going to start having a bad time.
So we can follow the ban and everyone else cheat?
I think the plan is the other way around.
Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.
Better keep them away from supercaviataing torpedoes, a carrier's true worst nightmare. Russia has had one since the late 70's. Iran has them too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
five hundred incoming rockets, drones, torpedoes, remote-controlled boats, and tiny speedboats ... Total cost of the attack, let's be extravagant and say one thousand dollars.
Where can you get all that for a grand?
I know, like those damned jews pissing off the Nazis, right?
Or how the nazis pissed off the rest of the world?
"But by and large, they like it because it is so conservative. "
This was always nonsense with regards to multiplayer quake, carmack and company wrote the book on how to design internet games. Quake with mods invented many of the genre's staples. What people loved about quake was the multiplayer, the single player was always phoned in. Quake never had a real good single player campaign or compelling universe, the good single player stopped with Doom for iD software, and you could see it in rage that they never really learned from other games that did it better.
Personally I thought Quake 2 had a great single player.
Why is it "insulting the entire gender" to say "gosh, you might want to consider whether using dead female bodies posed in necrophilic-erotic positions is really a healthy or appropriate thing to do." Personally I find it insulting to my gender that the creators of the game thing I would willingly tolerate such imagery. Essentially what the game producers are saying is "men are brutes with no compassion, let's pander to that." It's disgusting and insulting.
If your talking about the hitman bit, that was purely fabricated by her. She picks a game that you can do that to anybody, male or female, picks a very small section in a strip club where you're stopping a sexploitation ring, then kills them and drags them around the floor like that's the whole point of the game. Watch any playthrough of that level on youtube and practically everyone completely ignores them other than mention one of them will move later to a place you need to be so watch out and sneaks on past. She filmed that part purely to exaggerate the point that was completely made up to begin with.
"Essentially what the game producers are saying is "men are brutes with no compassion, let's pander to that." It's disgusting and insulting." No, that's what she's saying they're saying and basically she's saying YOU are a brute with no compassion and love nothing more than fantasising about dragging female corpses around and putting them in boxes. That is what is disgusting and insulting.
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
An internet troll spewing shit on the comments is about as credible a death threat as saying you'll kill someone when you find out they ate the last biscuit.
The only book that had healthy human sex in it was Friday, only one that showed real consentual sex that had happiness attached to it
The book of the film?
We don't iCare what it iDoes we just iCare what it iLooks like.
I still hum that little tune they did with the musical cheat or whatever it was... You are talking about the rts right?
Yes, let's kept paying the crony capitalists lest we be left defenseless. So many people have been nonchalant about the economic damage this system has caused to our country, so I can only hope the security damage is more successful in grabbing their attention.
Even if this project met its goals, it would still be extremely underwhelming... especially on cost-benefit analysis. Starting over is the right choice.
If cost is what your concerned with the best bet is buying in, get some eurofighters or a mig/sukoi combo. Imagine how well that would go down.
I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.
The only excuse for disabling that is intentional malice or extreme incompetence. Ubisoft has a history of either of those in regards to PC gamers. If it were an isolated event, I'd go with incompetence, but this is no longer coincidence. I'm pretty sure it's malice due to it's repetition. l
It's PC so they get to use the 'ensuring optimum quality for all users' line as cover for the bullshots.
Welcome to the http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
Q: if there was a human dumb savant who could translate instantly between multiple languages, though without understanding how he did it (think Rainman), would you say he was not intelligent? Why? What is intelligence? We are inconsistent - we praise humans as intelligent when they can perform some complex algorithm well (chess), and yet as soon as a computer beats a human, or all humans, we denigrate the task as "not intelligence". Often the reason is "just an algorithm", but as a neuroscientist knows, that is a poor excuse - it's algorithms all the way down.
Not in the sense you're implying, he'd be a gifted idiot. Extremely good at one specific thing but not a lot else. Is a dog intelligent? You could argue both sides for forever and a day.
The guy in your Chinese room may be intelligent, but other than matching symbols he is not displaying or using it.
Nope, not following instructions. I think all of those were based in machine learning.
I guess Google's car is following instructions too, like "drive me to New York", but most would still count that as AI.
How is that AI? It looks up the route (no one would say a sat nav device is AI) combined with autonomous operation from sensor input (no one would say a UAV or plane on autopilot is AI).
And AI is still, pardon my French, pretty fucking non-existent.
Except for the cell phone in your pocket, that can recognize your commands and search the internet for what you requested, or translate your statement into any of a dozen foreign languages, and has a camera that can recognize faces, and millions of objects, and can connect to expert systems that can, for instance, diagnose diseases better than all but the very best doctors. Oh, and your cellphone can also beat any grandmaster in the world at chess.
However, if you consider AI to be shorthand for "stuff computers can't do yet", then, yes, AI will always be "right around the corner".
Until I can have a genuine conversation with my phone that isn't just looking up responses based on my inputs and can actually understand what a conversation is about (i.e not a chatbot, not siri) then it's not AI.
Think background noise, which is what it is, and tune it out. Thinking of it as music implies you want to listen to it.
Several airlines now have in-flight WiFi and while the bandwidth is crappy, you could use it for VOIP. The two airlines I have flown on that have this (Lufthansa and United) both expressly forbid the use of Skype and voice apps for the very reason you state - it annoys other passengers.
Here's what Lufthansa has to say about it:
And United:
I have the same concerns you do, but this is one thing the airlines so far have gotten right.
I never understood this, I can chat to the guy next to me, even over the aisle and no one gives a shit. Put it on a phone and everyone freaks out. Is it because you can only evesdrop and half my conversation than annoys you so much?
Who was the guy who said it interrupts him watching videos? Maybe we don't want to listen to what ever shit you happen to be watching, also that's what headphones are for fuckwit.
You can always pick the airline that doesn't allow calls.
And when there are no such airlines left, then what?
You could always shove the inflight meal in your ears.