You're breaking the rules and making it worse for everyone!
No. They're making it better for people who find making money boring but are willing to pay for the more rewarding experience of having a rich character.
Is it a direct descendant of the technology? I thought other tilting trains used some of the basic research but totally reworked the entire tilting mechanism.
Interesting that Australia has a high speed service on narrow gauge. I think that makes it more unusual than the tilting trains.
Leaning over to take corners at speed is cool unless it throws everyones coffee into the isle
It didn't do that. The ride was very smooth (when the tilt mechanism worked). Too smooth actually. People got motion sickness from going round a corner without feeling like they were going round a corner.
You used to be able to see one rotting in the sidings at Crewe railway station.
It was still there last August.
Some of the technology made it to other trains. Sadly, not the tilting mechanism .
I'm not a gun nut, but this makes some sense to me. OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc.
Typically succesful revolutions have had considerable support from the army. There is, of course the issue that many indicidual soldiers would likely turn against their commanders if ordered to attack lightly armed civilians. Not sure if this has any bearing on gun control or not.
It's not just games magazines. It's all magazines. A large portion of their content is made from press releases. They have a magazine to fill up, and regurgitating press releases is a cheap easy way to do it. When all the papers were waxing lyrical about the Segway, did the journalists think "Wow, that's a cool toy. Let's find out about it"? The papers want you to think that, but what most likely happened was a P.R company sent a load of photos and bumph, and the editor got an office junior to rewrite it into an article.
But these are only previews. The purpose of a preview isn't to tell you what a games like. The sole purpose of a preview is to inform you that a game exists. This is not a bad thing. Gamers want to know what's coming. They just have to understand that a preview is not an opinion peice, but a promotional piece. To find out whether a game is any good, wait for the review.
JURRASIC PARK AND MRS DOUBTFIRE ARE IN NO WAY AS CULTURALY SIGNIFICANT AS SCHINDLER'S LIST
Jurrasic park was a warning message about the dangers of genetic engineering. While it was essentially another retelling of Frankenstein, it also encouraged us to speculate on how succesful prehistoric beasts would be as hunters when we were the prey. As a popular movie, it included a number of iconic scenes, and provided a showcase for revolutionary computer generated effects.
Mrs. Doubtfire was a touching comedy about a man who was separated from his children, and had to go to extreme lengths just to see them. As such, it is incredibly relevent to modern western society where more and fathers are denied access to their children.
Why are these movies less culturally significant than Schindler's List? Is it because they spend as much time entertaining the audience as they do delivering their message?
If one browser allows an attacker to read arbitrary files, and another allows an attacker to delete arbitrary files, then the one that allows the deletion is surely worse however many ways there are to read files.
If one browser can be attacked in a generic manner, and the other needs some knowledge of the victim, then the one that can be attacked in a generic manner is less secure.
Now, exactly how an easy to implement low impact and a hard to implement high impact attack compare is still going to be subjective, but wherever you draw the line, it's going to be better than simply counting the nuber of critical bugs.
True. Adjusted for inflation, the Star Wars films cost approx $60 million each. The price of movies has rocketted since 1999. (And you're right about the $4 figure)
True. The 3000-4000 I used was based on a theoretical maximum. Really, my point is that audiences will generally notice an improvement if the resolution goes up to 4K, and will probably notice if it goes up to 8K. When the technology becomes available, the theatres will need to upgrade again. On the other hand, the movie can (and presumably will) be shot digitally, and printed onto celluloid from digital, giving us something a lot closer to a first generation print. This will work with all projectors.
Don't get me wrong. I like digital. It has potential for a much better picture quality than film, will last considerably longer, and eliminates dust and scratches. I'm just convinced that it will improve very rapidly, making the existing generation redundant, and I suspect the theatres believe this too.
Digital picture quality isn't as good as they like to think. The resolution to match 35mm film is something like 3000-4000 pixels. 70mm film is twice that (going higher isn't neccesary since the eye has a limited resolution). Upgrading will involve replacing the most expensive component.
Cinemas like equipment that's built to last. Some cinemas are using projectors that are 30+ years old and still working perfectly. New equipment such as multi channel digital sound processors are just bolted on. You can't bolt a digital projector onto one of these. The technology is fundamentally different.
People are not going to go to the movies just because they have digital projectors. They don't care! It doesn't make a difference how the popcorn was delivered, or whether the electricity comes from nuclear power or coal either. They want to see a movie. This is the problem. Hollywood is too obsessed with technology (not just cameras but digital sets as well). Give us a decent story. Use the technology to tell the story.
Unfortunately, economics has a different definition of "better". As far as I can see, economically speaking, the world is a better place if you butcher people and sell the body parts than if you spaend time with your family.
If my understanding of how the law works is correct, I don't really like this decision.
My understanding is that it is accepted as fact that the rather stretched definition of "transmit" is now accepted as a fact, and that deleting these files being defined as "damage" is also accepted as fact. If I'm completely off base, and the court simply accepted that these are possibilities for the lower court to consider, then that's fair enough. I can see that the law is slightly ambiguous, but it seems quite clear to me that "transmission" (and indeed the whole law) was intended to cover worms and virusses from a remote computer. Not downloading software from a local computer.
So you'll have a new car, and someone else will get your car.
And someone else will get theirs and someone else will get theirs and at the end of the chain, someone will dispose of an old car. So society has lost a car for the one that was replaced. Wouldn't it be better for the economy to encourage manufacturers to make cars that last longer?
The idea that the shopkeeper may have spent the money on something else may not be true. He might have done. Or he might have been hoarding the money. The glazier on the other hand, is more likely to see that money as a perk, and spend it immediately.
Did Hoover Dam mean that the US was out by the cost of one dam? Did Nazi Germany's economy suffer because they were spending a lot of money on weapons? Why does the modern capitalist society encourage us to spend more and more on luxuries we really don't need?
Surely if the broken window fallacy was totally a fallacy, we could all work less. We don't all need new cars. My 10 year old TV still works as well as it did the day I bought it. Modern technology means we could all easily have a very comfortable lifestyle, with the essentials of life - with shelter, and all the food and clothing we need - if we all worked a 20 hour week. Most of society spends its time producing non-essential luxuries that people certainly don't need and wouldn't want if we weren't constantly told how good they are. According to the broken window fallacy, society is out of pocket be a very large number of luxury goods.
Why do you assume bad driving is genetic? Driving is a learned activity.
But there are genetic factors that influence your driving ability. Tendency to be ditracted, slow reactions, overly aggressive nature, colour blindness.
Also, bad drivers don't necessarily cause their own death, or only their own death, or die before they reproduce.
No, but they are statistically more likely to. A lot of things can only have evolved because of a slight evolutionary advantage.
Yeah. I'm not totally serious. However, serious fandom distorts the figures a little. When I was at University, the girls I knew were either really into Trek, and went to conventions, or they hated it and wouldn't watch it at all. I've met very few girls who just watch the show.
And I realise I'm playing stereotypes. Our science fiction society was offered free tickets to a Star Trek convention by a TV station. They seemed to lose interest when they found out that the only people who wanted to go were girls.
I exaggerated the male to female ratio of Trekkies for comic effect. The idea was that people would see the absurdity of there being fewer than 4 female Star Trek fans in the entire world, causing laughter.
Hope that helps explain the concept, Commander Data.
Slashdot Mirror
You're breaking the rules and making it worse for everyone!
No. They're making it better for people who find making money boring but are willing to pay for the more rewarding experience of having a rich character.
I've not played it. Has anyone who doesn't work for Rockstar?
I don't want an interactive service. I want to passively sit on my butt and watch TV!
Is it a direct descendant of the technology? I thought other tilting trains used some of the basic research but totally reworked the entire tilting mechanism.
Interesting that Australia has a high speed service on narrow gauge. I think that makes it more unusual than the tilting trains.
No, but the point is it would be a bit daft electrifying the routes, and then going backwards to diesel when electric is better.
The BR time dilation effects may be useful for interstellar travel.
Probably not. The 125 came before the APT. And was diesel electric rather than overhead electric. The 225 was the replacement electric locomotive.
Leaning over to take corners at speed is cool unless it throws everyones coffee into the isle
It didn't do that. The ride was very smooth (when the tilt mechanism worked). Too smooth actually. People got motion sickness from going round a corner without feeling like they were going round a corner.
You used to be able to see one rotting in the sidings at Crewe railway station.
It was still there last August.
Some of the technology made it to other trains. Sadly, not the tilting mechanism .
I'm not a gun nut, but this makes some sense to me. OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc.
Typically succesful revolutions have had considerable support from the army. There is, of course the issue that many indicidual soldiers would likely turn against their commanders if ordered to attack lightly armed civilians. Not sure if this has any bearing on gun control or not.
It's not just games magazines. It's all magazines. A large portion of their content is made from press releases. They have a magazine to fill up, and regurgitating press releases is a cheap easy way to do it. When all the papers were waxing lyrical about the Segway, did the journalists think "Wow, that's a cool toy. Let's find out about it"? The papers want you to think that, but what most likely happened was a P.R company sent a load of photos and bumph, and the editor got an office junior to rewrite it into an article.
But these are only previews. The purpose of a preview isn't to tell you what a games like. The sole purpose of a preview is to inform you that a game exists. This is not a bad thing. Gamers want to know what's coming. They just have to understand that a preview is not an opinion peice, but a promotional piece. To find out whether a game is any good, wait for the review.
JURRASIC PARK AND MRS DOUBTFIRE ARE IN NO WAY AS CULTURALY SIGNIFICANT AS SCHINDLER'S LIST
Jurrasic park was a warning message about the dangers of genetic engineering. While it was essentially another retelling of Frankenstein, it also encouraged us to speculate on how succesful prehistoric beasts would be as hunters when we were the prey. As a popular movie, it included a number of iconic scenes, and provided a showcase for revolutionary computer generated effects.
Mrs. Doubtfire was a touching comedy about a man who was separated from his children, and had to go to extreme lengths just to see them. As such, it is incredibly relevent to modern western society where more and fathers are denied access to their children.
Why are these movies less culturally significant than Schindler's List? Is it because they spend as much time entertaining the audience as they do delivering their message?
True. My examples were a huge oversimplification.
Weakest point, and amount of possible damage.
If one browser allows an attacker to read arbitrary files, and another allows an attacker to delete arbitrary files, then the one that allows the deletion is surely worse however many ways there are to read files.
If one browser can be attacked in a generic manner, and the other needs some knowledge of the victim, then the one that can be attacked in a generic manner is less secure.
Now, exactly how an easy to implement low impact and a hard to implement high impact attack compare is still going to be subjective, but wherever you draw the line, it's going to be better than simply counting the nuber of critical bugs.
True. Adjusted for inflation, the Star Wars films cost approx $60 million each. The price of movies has rocketted since 1999. (And you're right about the $4 figure)
True. The 3000-4000 I used was based on a theoretical maximum. Really, my point is that audiences will generally notice an improvement if the resolution goes up to 4K, and will probably notice if it goes up to 8K. When the technology becomes available, the theatres will need to upgrade again. On the other hand, the movie can (and presumably will) be shot digitally, and printed onto celluloid from digital, giving us something a lot closer to a first generation print. This will work with all projectors.
Don't get me wrong. I like digital. It has potential for a much better picture quality than film, will last considerably longer, and eliminates dust and scratches. I'm just convinced that it will improve very rapidly, making the existing generation redundant, and I suspect the theatres believe this too.
Digital picture quality isn't as good as they like to think. The resolution to match 35mm film is something like 3000-4000 pixels. 70mm film is twice that (going higher isn't neccesary since the eye has a limited resolution). Upgrading will involve replacing the most expensive component.
Cinemas like equipment that's built to last. Some cinemas are using projectors that are 30+ years old and still working perfectly. New equipment such as multi channel digital sound processors are just bolted on. You can't bolt a digital projector onto one of these. The technology is fundamentally different.
People are not going to go to the movies just because they have digital projectors. They don't care! It doesn't make a difference how the popcorn was delivered, or whether the electricity comes from nuclear power or coal either. They want to see a movie. This is the problem. Hollywood is too obsessed with technology (not just cameras but digital sets as well). Give us a decent story. Use the technology to tell the story.
Yes. It's a shame really. I was hoping to escape there when Britain became a dictatorship.
Do you know of any free countries? If not, I might decide to flee to China or Saudi Arabia. At least they're honest about restricting people's rights.
Unfortunately, economics has a different definition of "better". As far as I can see, economically speaking, the world is a better place if you butcher people and sell the body parts than if you spaend time with your family.
If my understanding of how the law works is correct, I don't really like this decision.
My understanding is that it is accepted as fact that the rather stretched definition of "transmit" is now accepted as a fact, and that deleting these files being defined as "damage" is also accepted as fact. If I'm completely off base, and the court simply accepted that these are possibilities for the lower court to consider, then that's fair enough. I can see that the law is slightly ambiguous, but it seems quite clear to me that "transmission" (and indeed the whole law) was intended to cover worms and virusses from a remote computer. Not downloading software from a local computer.
So you'll have a new car, and someone else will get your car.
And someone else will get theirs and someone else will get theirs and at the end of the chain, someone will dispose of an old car. So society has lost a car for the one that was replaced. Wouldn't it be better for the economy to encourage manufacturers to make cars that last longer?
Do economists agree with this in all cases?
The idea that the shopkeeper may have spent the money on something else may not be true. He might have done. Or he might have been hoarding the money. The glazier on the other hand, is more likely to see that money as a perk, and spend it immediately.
Did Hoover Dam mean that the US was out by the cost of one dam? Did Nazi Germany's economy suffer because they were spending a lot of money on weapons? Why does the modern capitalist society encourage us to spend more and more on luxuries we really don't need?
Surely if the broken window fallacy was totally a fallacy, we could all work less. We don't all need new cars. My 10 year old TV still works as well as it did the day I bought it. Modern technology means we could all easily have a very comfortable lifestyle, with the essentials of life - with shelter, and all the food and clothing we need - if we all worked a 20 hour week. Most of society spends its time producing non-essential luxuries that people certainly don't need and wouldn't want if we weren't constantly told how good they are. According to the broken window fallacy, society is out of pocket be a very large number of luxury goods.
You want to see scary?
Google "Kirk/Spock fanfic"
Why do you assume bad driving is genetic? Driving is a learned activity.
But there are genetic factors that influence your driving ability. Tendency to be ditracted, slow reactions, overly aggressive nature, colour blindness.
Also, bad drivers don't necessarily cause their own death, or only their own death, or die before they reproduce.
No, but they are statistically more likely to. A lot of things can only have evolved because of a slight evolutionary advantage.
Yeah. I'm not totally serious. However, serious fandom distorts the figures a little. When I was at University, the girls I knew were either really into Trek, and went to conventions, or they hated it and wouldn't watch it at all. I've met very few girls who just watch the show.
And I realise I'm playing stereotypes. Our science fiction society was offered free tickets to a Star Trek convention by a TV station. They seemed to lose interest when they found out that the only people who wanted to go were girls.
Is this supposed to be funny?
Yes.
I exaggerated the male to female ratio of Trekkies for comic effect. The idea was that people would see the absurdity of there being fewer than 4 female Star Trek fans in the entire world, causing laughter.
Hope that helps explain the concept, Commander Data.