Unless we're talking MGS-style railguns or somesuch, that doesn't work. Modern rockets- ICBMs included- aren't designed to slide gently out of the atmosphere so much as punch a giant rocket-shaped hole in it.
I don't worry. My game crashed three times during my first campaign. New Vegas saves every time you change environment by default. Go inside? Saved. Go back out? Saved. Fast travel? Saved. Sleep/wait? Saved. I lost maybe five minutes each crash. It's an inconvenience, not a game-breaker.
Well, you can either ignore the bugs (so much as they can be ignored)and have fun with the game for what it is, or you can be anal about it and miss out on playing a game that (despite the flaws) is still fun to play.
Me? I'll be playing New Vegas while you winge yourself inside out over the bugs.
Look at it this way- Yes, we have blind fanboyism and vitriolic hate. But we have people who call them out on it as well, and they're not pushed to the bottom of the stack.
It's an improvement over CNN and Fox's comment threads, anyway. The only thing they're good for is trolling (And a mighty fun pastime that is, to be sure).
I'm with you- Net neutrality is an issue that needs to be handled carefully and quickly, and I'm against censorship in all forms. Really, that last sentence could be replaced by OHMYGOD NET NEUTRALITY/VIRUSES/STEVE JOBS/FACEBOOK PANIIIIIIIIC" just as easily. It was a jab against/. campainging against fearmongering more than net neutrality.
Actually, cell phones don't have the strength needed to break the cellular bonds that cause cancer. Plus, while wifi allergies do exist (and they're nasty, nasty buggers) they're rare. I don't think I've heard of an actual study on wifi and its effects on people in the long term. Radio won't hurt us (we've proven that already, I think), solar radiation we've been living with for millennia, and flourescent lighting?
You're not selling out if you never really minded them in the first place. I never really saw Microsoft as malicious- just really, really stupid sometimes. Plus, hey, it's a living.
Zuckerberg, I don't know what graph you're looking at, but Google is much, much better at "innovating" than Microsoft is.
For example.
Google has: *Started work on autonomous cars. *Began acquiring reconnaissance drones to increase the usefulness of their maps. *Rolled out cars to photograph cities at street level.
Support Android, and by doing so support Facebook?
Or ditch Facebook, and by doing so ditch Android?
Eh. I'll stick with my Droid for now, thankyouverymuch.
Huh.
That's rather contradictory, considering that all the Android owners I know (myself included) absolutely love our phones, while the one person I've met with an iPhone was alright with the hardware, but hated the AT&T service.
For the record, the only things I have beef with when it comes to the iPhone is AT&T for the "unlimited" data service, the app market for its draconian policies, and the overall closed nature of the phone.
Uh, actually, they DID stop selling it. RTFS- they were two dummy programs made by a security firm to prove a point. They were useless, and could provide senstitive information. Here's the kicker line (from summary):
After the researcher voluntarily removed these applications from Android Market
Also, YOUR store? I'm pretty sure that it's Google's store, and as such, they can choose what to stock in it. That's the reason you never see any AO rated games- they're legal to sell, but none of the stores carry them for fear of public backlash.
And 20% malicious apps?
This mistake was remedied in the summary- 20% of the apps have the ability to interfere with your phone or have access to sensitive information. Most don't.
As if there weren't enough problems getting iphone 4s as it is....
Sure, he's in a helicopter with a good view of a peaceful square. However, they don't have magic cameras. They're flying hundreds of feet in the air, wind currents are buffeting the aircraft, and they're under stress to find and neutralize the guys shooting at their buddies. If you watched the video, that's what he had to deal with. He saw a person with something on his shoulder, aimed at our boys, in the general direction of where they'd reported fire earlier. They obeyed the ROE to the letter. It's not like they just started blasting, they asked for permission. It wasn't that they wanted to kill civilians- they wanted to kill bad guys. They just misidentified.
Point of clarification: They didn't know there were kids inside the vehicle before they fired. They only knew after the kids were pulled out by the troops, and were notified as such. Now, the "It's their own fault for bringing kids into a war zone" line was said, but only after the kids were pulled out, and well before it was known that the people on the ground were innocent civilians. I watched the HQ video myself, and the "kids" were pixels. I was inches away from my screen, staring at the paused video, and they were pixels. Same for the "rocket launcher". On the helicopter, he's got a smaller screen, he can't pause the action, and he's always moving. It is a case of failing to identify, yes, but it wasn't the shooter's fault. He saw a bunch of guys that looked like they were threatening his buddies, he requested permission to fire, and he got it. If you saw a guy pointing a gun at your friend, what would you do?
Slashdot Mirror
"Covert launching mechanism"
Unless we're talking MGS-style railguns or somesuch, that doesn't work. Modern rockets- ICBMs included- aren't designed to slide gently out of the atmosphere so much as punch a giant rocket-shaped hole in it.
I don't worry. My game crashed three times during my first campaign. New Vegas saves every time you change environment by default. Go inside? Saved. Go back out? Saved. Fast travel? Saved. Sleep/wait? Saved. I lost maybe five minutes each crash. It's an inconvenience, not a game-breaker.
Well, you can either ignore the bugs (so much as they can be ignored)and have fun with the game for what it is, or you can be anal about it and miss out on playing a game that (despite the flaws) is still fun to play.
Me? I'll be playing New Vegas while you winge yourself inside out over the bugs.
Look at it this way- Yes, we have blind fanboyism and vitriolic hate. But we have people who call them out on it as well, and they're not pushed to the bottom of the stack.
It's an improvement over CNN and Fox's comment threads, anyway. The only thing they're good for is trolling (And a mighty fun pastime that is, to be sure).
This is exactly how censorship should work.
And an even better reason why censorship- in any form- shouldn't be allowed in an, if you'll allow me to borrow the expression, enlightened society.
Pah. Details.
Droid in 1080p... *glorious*
I'm with you- Net neutrality is an issue that needs to be handled carefully and quickly, and I'm against censorship in all forms. Really, that last sentence could be replaced by OHMYGOD NET NEUTRALITY/VIRUSES/STEVE JOBS/FACEBOOK PANIIIIIIIIC" just as easily. It was a jab against /. campainging against fearmongering more than net neutrality.
You make a good point. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be swayed by fear tactics. We should think through the issues, and make careful, reasoned deci-
OHMIGOD NET NEUTRALITY AAAAAGH
Freedom to censor.
That's a new one.
You had me panicked there for a moment.
If Israel goes, then Iran will go. Palestine too, probably. I don't think Amadinejad is crazy enough to commit suicide.
Actually, cell phones don't have the strength needed to break the cellular bonds that cause cancer. Plus, while wifi allergies do exist (and they're nasty, nasty buggers) they're rare. I don't think I've heard of an actual study on wifi and its effects on people in the long term. Radio won't hurt us (we've proven that already, I think), solar radiation we've been living with for millennia, and flourescent lighting?
You're not selling out if you never really minded them in the first place. I never really saw Microsoft as malicious- just really, really stupid sometimes. Plus, hey, it's a living.
Zuckerberg, I don't know what graph you're looking at, but Google is much, much better at "innovating" than Microsoft is.
For example.
Google has:
*Started work on autonomous cars.
*Began acquiring reconnaissance drones to increase the usefulness of their maps.
*Rolled out cars to photograph cities at street level.
Microsoft has:
*Rebranded their search engine
From the summary, it appears as though they're using drives with fake malware on them to keep operators on their toes. This should be fun.
From the pictures, the Buran looks like the Space Shuttle screwed a Concorde.
Support Android, and by doing so support Facebook? Or ditch Facebook, and by doing so ditch Android? Eh. I'll stick with my Droid for now, thankyouverymuch.
Every day, there seems to be at least one article on /. that makes me shake my head and go "What the hell?"
Huh. That's rather contradictory, considering that all the Android owners I know (myself included) absolutely love our phones, while the one person I've met with an iPhone was alright with the hardware, but hated the AT&T service. For the record, the only things I have beef with when it comes to the iPhone is AT&T for the "unlimited" data service, the app market for its draconian policies, and the overall closed nature of the phone.
I think this is the first time a judge's incompetence in relation to computers actually improved the internet as a whole.
Not stopped selling it in my store
Uh, actually, they DID stop selling it. RTFS- they were two dummy programs made by a security firm to prove a point. They were useless, and could provide senstitive information. Here's the kicker line (from summary):
After the researcher voluntarily removed these applications from Android Market
Also, YOUR store? I'm pretty sure that it's Google's store, and as such, they can choose what to stock in it. That's the reason you never see any AO rated games- they're legal to sell, but none of the stores carry them for fear of public backlash.
And 20% malicious apps?
This mistake was remedied in the summary- 20% of the apps have the ability to interfere with your phone or have access to sensitive information. Most don't.
As if there weren't enough problems getting iphone 4s as it is....
Yeah, I don't quite get this part at all.
Summary: "may have been duped by wannabe hacker Adrian Lamo"
FTA: "convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo"
2+2=5?
Sure, he's in a helicopter with a good view of a peaceful square. However, they don't have magic cameras. They're flying hundreds of feet in the air, wind currents are buffeting the aircraft, and they're under stress to find and neutralize the guys shooting at their buddies. If you watched the video, that's what he had to deal with. He saw a person with something on his shoulder, aimed at our boys, in the general direction of where they'd reported fire earlier. They obeyed the ROE to the letter. It's not like they just started blasting, they asked for permission. It wasn't that they wanted to kill civilians- they wanted to kill bad guys. They just misidentified.
Point of clarification: They didn't know there were kids inside the vehicle before they fired. They only knew after the kids were pulled out by the troops, and were notified as such. Now, the "It's their own fault for bringing kids into a war zone" line was said, but only after the kids were pulled out, and well before it was known that the people on the ground were innocent civilians. I watched the HQ video myself, and the "kids" were pixels. I was inches away from my screen, staring at the paused video, and they were pixels. Same for the "rocket launcher". On the helicopter, he's got a smaller screen, he can't pause the action, and he's always moving. It is a case of failing to identify, yes, but it wasn't the shooter's fault. He saw a bunch of guys that looked like they were threatening his buddies, he requested permission to fire, and he got it. If you saw a guy pointing a gun at your friend, what would you do?