Typical Slashdot whining doublethink - first they whine and complain about how the government isn't putting money into getting 'greener' cars on the road, and then when the government does do so, they whine about *that*.
Now, keep in mind that directors often have multiple projects that are in some form of production -- either stalled or pending development or in full swing
Indeed. And at any given time only a portion of those multiple projects actually require significant personal attention at any given time. The rest, maybe a couple of hours a week or month. (Much of it just reviewing what other people are doing, E.G. supervisory/management work.)
Seriously, why do some people (like the story submitter) not understand multitasking?
How many variations of go to X and kill/collect Y of Z are there, I wonder?
Well, there aren't really that many variations of 'go to X and kill/collect Y of Z', but there are more possible goals than just 'go to X and kill/collect Y of Z'. For the basic mission goals available in CoX, see Tutorial 104, for more advanced goals see the 200 series of tutorials.
There's also some deeper tricks you can play - like chaining goals. (Goal 'y' won't spawn until goal 'x' is accomplished.) If you have a 'boss fight' goal, you can arrange it such that he gets reinforcements as his hit points decrease. For 'rescue a hostage' goals, the hostage can be someone who must be escorted out (and survive) or simply killing his guards may suffice. Or maybe he becomes an ally (an NPC who fights alongside you), or betrays you (leads you into a trap).
Granted, I remember a long time ago playing user created campaigns in NWN, and they weren't half bad, but even professional designers seem to have difficulty putting together compelling mssions in MMOs... color me skeptical.
Sure, mission arcs published via the Architect are subject to Sturgeon's Law much like anything else. But that is what the rating system is for, filtering out the 90%, and mostly it works.
The Mission Architect is a bit more than 'just a level editor'. You pick the map, populate it with enemies (who you can design or use the standard ones), allies (who you can design or use the standard ones), and mission objectives of more than a dozen different types. Then you can write the intro text, the mission text, the villain's gloats, the hostages heartfelt thank you's, etc... etc...
And that's just for *one* of the three stories you pack together into your custom mission arc.
Others have suggested building *safe* plants. Personally I blame the US Navy. I once heard that basically we have landlubbing ship/submarine reactors for our domestic electric power plants for the sake of the US Navy. The type of reactors we use in the US are great for power density, not so great for safety by-design, not so great for cleanup, etc. But the Navy gets the benefit of a "nuclear industry" that practices their kind of reactors. Nuclear training in the US is essentially all for Navy reactors. Unfortunately, this contributed to the death of the nuclear industry in the US. Had we gone with one of the inherently safe, inherently cleaner designs, or had we taken the French standardization-based approach instead of a whole pile of similar one-offs, we might still have a nuclear industry, cleaner air, cheaper power, etc.
This has to be one of the most confusing and confused paragraphs I've ever seen on Slashdot - but I'll try to make some sense of it.
"I once heard that basically we have landlubbing ship/submarine reactors for our domestic electric power plants for the sake of the US Navy. The type of reactors we use in the US are great for power density, not so great for safety by-design, not so great for cleanup, etc. But the Navy gets the benefit of a "nuclear industry" that practices their kind of reactors."
Well, you shouldn't believe everything you hear. While the USN and land based power reactors are both PWR's, that's like saying a Cray and a pocket calculator are both computers. There's a great deal of difference between the two types of plants despite the surface similarities. Also, since the USN is still purchasing reactors and the domestic market is not... the domestic market is hardly supporting the Navy.
"Nuclear training in the US is essentially all for Navy reactors."
Since the Navy doesn't provide training for any domestic reactors, this can't possibly be true.
"Unfortunately, this contributed to the death of the nuclear industry in the US."
An opinion, presented as a fact, completely in absence of support.
"Had we gone with one of the inherently safe, inherently cleaner designs, or had we taken the French standardization-based approach instead of a whole pile of similar one-offs, we might still have a nuclear industry, cleaner air, cheaper power, etc."
And if pigs could fly, we'd all wear hats and be dodging falling pig shit.
Like I already told you, it's important to actually read the paragraph's you cite.
NRS 651.070 is very specific, and just like NRS 651.080 it deals with discrimination and stands utterly and completely silent on whether or not an inkeeper may limit how a guest uses the facilities so long as he does not discriminate.
I can't think of a single SF series that I dislike enough to suggest that they should be treated to the crapification process that constitutes reboots today.
Per the innkeeper statute, the hotel has no such right - see NRS 651.080 in the link above.
You might want to read NRS 651.080 yourself before making such broad (and false) claims. The paragraph you cite addresses disabilities, discrimination, service animals etc... etc... It, in no way prevents the hotel from deciding what a customer may or may not do in his room.
This really has nothing to do with 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'. That principle applies to things you intend to do privately that you wish to keep hidden from a second or third party, not to things you do publicly.
If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window (for example) it doesn't matter one bit what I do on Facebook, because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Period. If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities, I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.
I do believe *you* are the one blowing smoke, on both issues. First you complain about the lack of numbers but give none yourself.
You could look them up, but since you can't bothered... Meteors large enough to survive transit through the Earth's atmosphere and leave a recognizable crater about once every ten thousand years across the entire surface of the earth.
[Remainder of your post snipped, as it's nothing but smoke blowing bullshit. Given the quantities you emit, it's unsurprising you are no longer able to discern the difference between smoke and science.]
"For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel. I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land." -- Well for someone MY age, the Shuttle with its false promises of cheap access to space is what destroyed the Apollo-Saturn progression of vehicles and stagnated real manned space exploration for 30 years.
That's because your generation is apparently shockingly ignorant of space history and content to repeat slogans and memes rather than educating themselves.
In the 1950's the emphasis was on steadily going higher and faster in reusable aerospacecraft, like the X-15. Then space became political and speed and stunts were of paramount importance, so an Air Force study called MISS (Man In Space Soonest) was dusted off and became the Mercury program. This emphasis on stunts and dick size is what has stagnated space exploration for all these decades.
On top of that, you've got your chronology all wrong. Apollo was essentially, if informally, canceled during the budget cutbacks of 65-67. (Yes, that's right - hardware procurement was capped four years before it even flew!) The earliest formal Shuttle contracts weren't however signed until 1969.
I knew that Enterprise never made it to space, I was just surprised that internally at NASA they werent counting it. ( The same as some of them start the project in 1976, instead of 1981)
The STS (that is, the Shuttle Orbiter flying today) program actually started in 1972. The shuttle program (which eventually became the STS program) actually starts in 1969. (The first round of development contracts were in fact signed as Apollo 11 was on the way to the Moon.) The shuttle program however was built on several earlier rounds of design and study contracts.
So the 'date the Shuttle began' is really a multiple choice question with a variety of possible correct answers.
Yes, private companies are pretty good at sending small satellites into orbit
Pretty good? You really need to learn just a wee bit more before pontificating.
Lockheed Martinalone has built more than 34 satellites of a single design, and 96 in total. Nor are these small birds - the A2100 weighs in the two ton range.
Have they sent anything into orbit? Have they made a trip to the ISS? Private space companies haven't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.
Private companies have been launching (and owning) satellites since the early 60's.
That is, if you use the usual definition of private companies which equates to public ownership. (E.G. Boeing.) Private companies have only 'not accomplished anything' if you use the NewSpace/new speak meaning that equates to "only space fanboi approved recently founded companies". (E.G. SpaceX)
Artifically deny your customer the ability to buy your product.
If that was what they were doing, you'd have a point. But their customers ability to buy is unimpeded. What they are doing is limiting the availability to rent the product, a very different thing.
Which means you miss the point entirely. Impact craters are fairly rare, recognizable impact craters rarer still, fresh impact craters even more rare. Thus the odds are very slim indeed.
Or to put it less politely, I'm looking at it from a scientific point of view - actually considering the numbers. You're just blowing smoke.
Not to mention that a rock dropped into water produces an effect that looks precisely nothing like an impact crater. The logical conclusion, since the land based feature lacks the splash back peak and multiple ripples that characterize a water impact is that they aren't caused by the same effect.
Nor would it be very surprising that they correctly deduced that craters are caused by meteor impact. The frequency of *large* meteorite collisions may be quite low, but the frequency of medium and small impacts is orders of magnitude greater, and they also leave craters.
Keep in mind that an order of magnitude greater (that is less rare) than "incredibly, unbelievably, fucking rare" is still "incredibly fucking rare". The smallest (and hence most common) bodies that have a reasonable chance to survive to reach the Earth's surface and leave a crater are going to be in the ten's of meters size range - which hit every thousand years or so. Given the small size of Australia in comparison to the whole of the Earth's surface, the odds are extraordinarily slim that an Aborigine witnessed an impact event. (Even slimmer when you consider their low population density.)
As I said, this explanation makes no sense - as the 'glory years' of Omni were in the years after he departed. The slide didn't start until the mid-late 80's.
Given that they're both on the market at the same time - that's a valid comparison. If I go to buy a new model car, I expect it to be up-to-date for 2010 not 2001. Ditto for my TV, kitchen appliances, tools for my woodshop, etc... etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Typical Slashdot whining doublethink - first they whine and complain about how the government isn't putting money into getting 'greener' cars on the road, and then when the government does do so, they whine about *that*.
Indeed. And at any given time only a portion of those multiple projects actually require significant personal attention at any given time. The rest, maybe a couple of hours a week or month. (Much of it just reviewing what other people are doing, E.G. supervisory/management work.)
Seriously, why do some people (like the story submitter) not understand multitasking?
In a universe where the CoX Mission Architect was the first level editor I've ever used, you'd have a point.
Well, there aren't really that many variations of 'go to X and kill/collect Y of Z', but there are more possible goals than just 'go to X and kill/collect Y of Z'. For the basic mission goals available in CoX, see Tutorial 104, for more advanced goals see the 200 series of tutorials.
There's also some deeper tricks you can play - like chaining goals. (Goal 'y' won't spawn until goal 'x' is accomplished.) If you have a 'boss fight' goal, you can arrange it such that he gets reinforcements as his hit points decrease. For 'rescue a hostage' goals, the hostage can be someone who must be escorted out (and survive) or simply killing his guards may suffice. Or maybe he becomes an ally (an NPC who fights alongside you), or betrays you (leads you into a trap).
Sure, mission arcs published via the Architect are subject to Sturgeon's Law much like anything else. But that is what the rating system is for, filtering out the 90%, and mostly it works.
The Mission Architect is a bit more than 'just a level editor'. You pick the map, populate it with enemies (who you can design or use the standard ones), allies (who you can design or use the standard ones), and mission objectives of more than a dozen different types. Then you can write the intro text, the mission text, the villain's gloats, the hostages heartfelt thank you's, etc... etc...
And that's just for *one* of the three stories you pack together into your custom mission arc.
This has to be one of the most confusing and confused paragraphs I've ever seen on Slashdot - but I'll try to make some sense of it.
"I once heard that basically we have landlubbing ship/submarine reactors for our domestic electric power plants for the sake of the US Navy. The type of reactors we use in the US are great for power density, not so great for safety by-design, not so great for cleanup, etc. But the Navy gets the benefit of a "nuclear industry" that practices their kind of reactors."
Well, you shouldn't believe everything you hear. While the USN and land based power reactors are both PWR's, that's like saying a Cray and a pocket calculator are both computers. There's a great deal of difference between the two types of plants despite the surface similarities. Also, since the USN is still purchasing reactors and the domestic market is not... the domestic market is hardly supporting the Navy.
"Nuclear training in the US is essentially all for Navy reactors."
Since the Navy doesn't provide training for any domestic reactors, this can't possibly be true.
"Unfortunately, this contributed to the death of the nuclear industry in the US."
An opinion, presented as a fact, completely in absence of support.
"Had we gone with one of the inherently safe, inherently cleaner designs, or had we taken the French standardization-based approach instead of a whole pile of similar one-offs, we might still have a nuclear industry, cleaner air, cheaper power, etc."
And if pigs could fly, we'd all wear hats and be dodging falling pig shit.
Like I already told you, it's important to actually read the paragraph's you cite.
NRS 651.070 is very specific, and just like NRS 651.080 it deals with discrimination and stands utterly and completely silent on whether or not an inkeeper may limit how a guest uses the facilities so long as he does not discriminate.
I can't think of a single SF series that I dislike enough to suggest that they should be treated to the crapification process that constitutes reboots today.
You might want to read NRS 651.080 yourself before making such broad (and false) claims. The paragraph you cite addresses disabilities, discrimination, service animals etc... etc... It, in no way prevents the hotel from deciding what a customer may or may not do in his room.
This really has nothing to do with 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'. That principle applies to things you intend to do privately that you wish to keep hidden from a second or third party, not to things you do publicly.
If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window (for example) it doesn't matter one bit what I do on Facebook, because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Period. If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities, I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.
I was about to mention the very same thing before I scrolled down and saw your reply. (Though I was an FTB, not a nuke.)
Indeed, I hadn't thought of that angle.
You could look them up, but since you can't bothered... Meteors large enough to survive transit through the Earth's atmosphere and leave a recognizable crater about once every ten thousand years across the entire surface of the earth.
[Remainder of your post snipped, as it's nothing but smoke blowing bullshit. Given the quantities you emit, it's unsurprising you are no longer able to discern the difference between smoke and science.]
Challenger was destroyed during ascent. Columbia broke up during re entry.
That's because your generation is apparently shockingly ignorant of space history and content to repeat slogans and memes rather than educating themselves.
In the 1950's the emphasis was on steadily going higher and faster in reusable aerospacecraft, like the X-15. Then space became political and speed and stunts were of paramount importance, so an Air Force study called MISS (Man In Space Soonest) was dusted off and became the Mercury program. This emphasis on stunts and dick size is what has stagnated space exploration for all these decades.
On top of that, you've got your chronology all wrong. Apollo was essentially, if informally, canceled during the budget cutbacks of 65-67. (Yes, that's right - hardware procurement was capped four years before it even flew!) The earliest formal Shuttle contracts weren't however signed until 1969.
The STS (that is, the Shuttle Orbiter flying today) program actually started in 1972. The shuttle program (which eventually became the STS program) actually starts in 1969. (The first round of development contracts were in fact signed as Apollo 11 was on the way to the Moon.) The shuttle program however was built on several earlier rounds of design and study contracts.
So the 'date the Shuttle began' is really a multiple choice question with a variety of possible correct answers.
Pretty good? You really need to learn just a wee bit more before pontificating.
Lockheed Martin alone has built more than 34 satellites of a single design, and 96 in total. Nor are these small birds - the A2100 weighs in the two ton range.
Private companies have been launching (and owning) satellites since the early 60's.
That is, if you use the usual definition of private companies which equates to public ownership. (E.G. Boeing.) Private companies have only 'not accomplished anything' if you use the NewSpace/new speak meaning that equates to "only space fanboi approved recently founded companies". (E.G. SpaceX)
It's not like pirates need any excuse to pirate, they'll do so no matter what.
If that was what they were doing, you'd have a point. But their customers ability to buy is unimpeded. What they are doing is limiting the availability to rent the product, a very different thing.
Learn to fucking read moron, I never said it was impossible, I said it was improbable. There is a difference.
Which means you miss the point entirely. Impact craters are fairly rare, recognizable impact craters rarer still, fresh impact craters even more rare. Thus the odds are very slim indeed.
Or to put it less politely, I'm looking at it from a scientific point of view - actually considering the numbers. You're just blowing smoke.
Not to mention that a rock dropped into water produces an effect that looks precisely nothing like an impact crater. The logical conclusion, since the land based feature lacks the splash back peak and multiple ripples that characterize a water impact is that they aren't caused by the same effect.
Keep in mind that an order of magnitude greater (that is less rare) than "incredibly, unbelievably, fucking rare" is still "incredibly fucking rare". The smallest (and hence most common) bodies that have a reasonable chance to survive to reach the Earth's surface and leave a crater are going to be in the ten's of meters size range - which hit every thousand years or so. Given the small size of Australia in comparison to the whole of the Earth's surface, the odds are extraordinarily slim that an Aborigine witnessed an impact event. (Even slimmer when you consider their low population density.)
Not impossible, but highly improbable.
As I said, this explanation makes no sense - as the 'glory years' of Omni were in the years after he departed. The slide didn't start until the mid-late 80's.
Given that they're both on the market at the same time - that's a valid comparison. If I go to buy a new model car, I expect it to be up-to-date for 2010 not 2001. Ditto for my TV, kitchen appliances, tools for my woodshop, etc... etc...