StarCraft is only dominated by rush tactics when the players don't have the skills to defend against a rush. In StarCraft attempting a rush dooms you to failure if the rush doesn't fatally wound your opponent ('cause you stunted your economy to build your rushers). Correctly defending against a rush is mostly micromanagement (using your workers correctly to defend, which means constantly issuing them the attack orders they need since they won't attack on their own, while keeping some working on your economy). AIs should excel at micromanagement. I don't think rushing would be a problem in a StarCraft AI match.
I was talking to a pre-med student at a fairly prestigious University on the east coast recently about Swine Flu. He told me that he doesn't intend to get a flu vaccine, because he saw this news report about a girl that got a vaccine and developed dystonia, causing her to not be able to walk properly and all that. One would think that someone studying to be pre-med would realize that the odds of something like this are pretty astronomical, and that 99.9% of people getting flu vaccines don't have these problems
One would think that anybody getting a college-level education would realize that the report doesn't even provide any real evidence that the vaccine caused the dystonia in the first place.
That statement is so wrong I'm tempted to not even try refuting the rest of your post. I said *hard*, not impossible. And the critical piece is the *ships*, not the weapons. Weapons, even large ones, can be easy to hide. Ships that can carry those large weapons, not so much. And they're more expensive than the garden-variety weaponry you're talking about here.
It only gets nasty when there's an escellation [sic] of force.
An escalation of force is exactly what you want. The fact of the matter is, you can't run a guerilla war at sea. An escalation of force means the pirates lose, because they can't match a navy force for force, and they can't hide a ship that would be capable of overcoming a moderately armed merchantman.
Eventually, you'll get to the point where a merchant fleet will be escorted by a carrier group. It may be better to lose the occasional ship to pirates, than to be fighting an all-out war. Hopefully that's a lesson learned from the golden age of piracy and privateering.
No, the lesson to be learned from the golden age of piracy is that a ship capable of mounting significant firepower is frickin' *big* and hence hard to hide, and they're expensive, so the pirates can't easily replace them. You sink those. Mount decent firepower of your own to take on the small fry that can be hard to find and easy to replace, and you've got the problem pretty much solved. That's how they suppressed piracy then, and that's how we'll suppress it today if we can be bothered to do it.
Wah... oh well, sooner or later people will look at the price of their preferred genuine Apple portable, divide it by the number of hours they spend hacking to keep things working every time there is a point update, subtract a bit for general annoyance, come up with a single-digit hourly figure, and if they have half a brain they'll just use Linux.
Last I checked China still does not have a bill of rights
Actually, they do. However, their bill of rights reserves to the state the power to "reform traitors and counter-revolutionaries." In other words, the Chinese Communist Party grants you the full spread of rights...unless, of course, you disagree with it.
The only real solution to distracted driving is education. Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become, that doesn't make it any less necessary to respect "safe control of the vehicle" as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle.
The problem is, that's a solution that doesn't work. Case in point: every time something related to this subject comes up, we get the mandated number of posts from people who say, "Yeah, some people may not be able to drive while talking on the phone/eating a pizza/doing their taxes, but I'm really good, and I don't have any trouble doing it and staying in complete control of my car." *All* of these morons will hear the education and say, "Yeah, but I'm an exception."
You're trying to draw dividing lines without the evidence you need to do so. You claim that subatomic uncertainty has no bearing on our free will or lack of it, but the operation of the brain is very poorly understood; you can not justify that statement.
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe.
Good thing we don't live in one, then.
Everything that will ever happen was decided at the time of the Big Bang. We just don't have the instruments to predict everything yet.
Nope. It is impossible, even at the most basic theoretical level, to predict everything. Basic physics theory shows that it is impossible to even just measure everything to an arbitrary degree of precision regardless of what instrumentation you may have. Go back and read your Heisenberg.
Is personal responsibility compatible with atheism?
Is personal responsibility compatible with religion? If everything is controlled by an omnipotent, omniscient Being, then where does personal responsibility come into play? Everything happens according to God's plan. How do we blame a person for following Someone else's plan?
The point of all this is people can build up irrational fears of what they don't understand.
I understand computers very well, thank you. I earn my paycheck running them. It's *because* I understand computers that the idea of having one run my car's brakes makes me nervous. It's only the people who don't understand computers who believe, "The computer said it, so it must be true." Read the RISKS forum some time: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks.
Mankind has thousands of years of experience with mechanics and hydraulics. Compared to that, computers aren't just a new-fangled technology; they're an infant technology.
Going at 70 (the speed limit over here) in the right lane (the left lane over here;-) and taking my foot off the throttle would result in my slowing down pretty quickly... I know if someone did that in front of me at that speed I don't think I'd crash into them, but would be rather taken aback and have to have quick reflexes to slow down,
If you would have trouble with the person in front of you taking his foot off the throttle, you are following WAY too damn close. God forbid there should be an emergency that actually required him to *brake*.
I can imagine a worse driver hitting the back of them.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you *are* the "worse driver".
Blizzard made the training simulator for the drones/swarms so the military could release a game to the public to recruit operators and pilots through various military sponsored tournaments.
"Greetings, magistrate! You have been recruited by the U.S. Army to defend Iraq against Osama and the Al-Qaeda armada! Good luck!"
The Japanese surrendered after we dropped the atomic bombs, yes. Upon which we *physically occupied* Japan to ensure a definitive end to the war. In the end, you gotta have a grunt with a rifle holding the territory.
And we all know what happens over time when a government extends itself beyond a sustainable threshold for too long - rebellions. Factions. Unrest. New states and governments that represent the people and their values.
And the next thing you know, sombody's dropping a space colony on Australia.
Slashdot Mirror
StarCraft is only dominated by rush tactics when the players don't have the skills to defend against a rush. In StarCraft attempting a rush dooms you to failure if the rush doesn't fatally wound your opponent ('cause you stunted your economy to build your rushers). Correctly defending against a rush is mostly micromanagement (using your workers correctly to defend, which means constantly issuing them the attack orders they need since they won't attack on their own, while keeping some working on your economy). AIs should excel at micromanagement. I don't think rushing would be a problem in a StarCraft AI match.
One would think that anybody getting a college-level education would realize that the report doesn't even provide any real evidence that the vaccine caused the dystonia in the first place.
Wow. When you find any, let me know, will you?
Wow, I wasn't aware that the war in Iraq was being fought at sea.
There's a basic difference between in fighting in the open sea and fighting on land that you appear to totally fail to grasp.
That statement is so wrong I'm tempted to not even try refuting the rest of your post. I said *hard*, not impossible. And the critical piece is the *ships*, not the weapons. Weapons, even large ones, can be easy to hide. Ships that can carry those large weapons, not so much. And they're more expensive than the garden-variety weaponry you're talking about here.
An escalation of force is exactly what you want. The fact of the matter is, you can't run a guerilla war at sea. An escalation of force means the pirates lose, because they can't match a navy force for force, and they can't hide a ship that would be capable of overcoming a moderately armed merchantman.
No, the lesson to be learned from the golden age of piracy is that a ship capable of mounting significant firepower is frickin' *big* and hence hard to hide, and they're expensive, so the pirates can't easily replace them. You sink those. Mount decent firepower of your own to take on the small fry that can be hard to find and easy to replace, and you've got the problem pretty much solved. That's how they suppressed piracy then, and that's how we'll suppress it today if we can be bothered to do it.
Fixed that for you.
Actually, they do. However, their bill of rights reserves to the state the power to "reform traitors and counter-revolutionaries." In other words, the Chinese Communist Party grants you the full spread of rights...unless, of course, you disagree with it.
The trick is the "do what they want" part. They haven't quite got the mind-reading circuitry all worked out.
Yes, but what's its unladen airspeed velocity?
The problem is, that's a solution that doesn't work. Case in point: every time something related to this subject comes up, we get the mandated number of posts from people who say, "Yeah, some people may not be able to drive while talking on the phone/eating a pizza/doing their taxes, but I'm really good, and I don't have any trouble doing it and staying in complete control of my car." *All* of these morons will hear the education and say, "Yeah, but I'm an exception."
You're trying to draw dividing lines without the evidence you need to do so. You claim that subatomic uncertainty has no bearing on our free will or lack of it, but the operation of the brain is very poorly understood; you can not justify that statement.
Good thing we don't live in one, then.
Nope. It is impossible, even at the most basic theoretical level, to predict everything. Basic physics theory shows that it is impossible to even just measure everything to an arbitrary degree of precision regardless of what instrumentation you may have. Go back and read your Heisenberg.
Is personal responsibility compatible with religion? If everything is controlled by an omnipotent, omniscient Being, then where does personal responsibility come into play? Everything happens according to God's plan. How do we blame a person for following Someone else's plan?
...don't we need to keep him locked up *longer*, since he's more likely to do it again?
Try to ignore the ear-shattering whine as your engine tears itself to pieces. If you're lucky, it won't catch on fire.
I understand computers very well, thank you. I earn my paycheck running them. It's *because* I understand computers that the idea of having one run my car's brakes makes me nervous. It's only the people who don't understand computers who believe, "The computer said it, so it must be true." Read the RISKS forum some time: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks.
Mankind has thousands of years of experience with mechanics and hydraulics. Compared to that, computers aren't just a new-fangled technology; they're an infant technology.
You make an ass of ump and tions!
If you would have trouble with the person in front of you taking his foot off the throttle, you are following WAY too damn close. God forbid there should be an emergency that actually required him to *brake*.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you *are* the "worse driver".
"Greetings, magistrate! You have been recruited by the U.S. Army to defend Iraq against Osama and the Al-Qaeda armada! Good luck!"
And all our base are belong to it.
So *that's* why the flamethrowers have been asking if we've got any questions about propane accessories!
The Japanese surrendered after we dropped the atomic bombs, yes. Upon which we *physically occupied* Japan to ensure a definitive end to the war. In the end, you gotta have a grunt with a rifle holding the territory.
And the next thing you know, sombody's dropping a space colony on Australia.