It's not. Starcraft is nothing like Starship Troopers, in the sense that Saving Private Ryan is nothing like Hogan's Heroes, in spite of them both being about Americans in the Second World War.
Game stories don't really make great movie stories. First, they are too short.
Generally, I would think the opposite is true. Many games have stories that would require a Game of Thrones style multi-season TV series to cover them.
Well the thing about smart phones is a lot of them have OLED screens, where it makes more sense that displaying a black pixel uses less power than a white pixel. Although TBH I don't know for sure if that is the case.
They're surprisingly nice, too! I can hardly distinguish their light from a real 60 watt incandescent. Not like the original CFLs that gave everything a strange tint
The key is to make sure you get the right color temperature. For the "soft-white" look that everyone loves from incandescents, you want 2700K.
Reminds me of a few years ago my sister (who is very environmentally conscious) was using Blackle instead of Google in order to save energy (they even advertise the number of watt hours "saved" under the search bar).
She was a bit dejected when I informed her that LCD screens don't use less energy displaying black vs. white, since black is merely produced by blocking the light, and that the only way to save power was to turn the brightness on her laptop down.
The DMCA is a terrible leftist law passed in 1996 by a voice vote in the Republican controlled House and unanimous consent in the Republican controlled Senate.
You make some interesting points. However I think one major problem with your argument is that it assumes the only way to be offensive is by exploiting flaws in the system. There are other ways to be offensive, and one of the most effective of those has been exploiting flaws in the humans using the system.
The other thing is that I really can't see how the risk of leaving these exploits open will ever be overtaken by the potential "offensive" gains. The potential damage to institutions, businesses, the economy... I mean this time was only "so" bad, next time it could be much much worse.
Also consider the matter of scale. You don't need to be a government to use these exploits. Leaving them open means putting that power in the hands of anyone who finds it. What good is all that offensive capability when you can't direct it at something like a government, with known facilities and targets to attack? What good do they do you against a small group like the ones that attacked the British NHS? Not a whole lot.
I think cyber warfare is a case where the best offense is actually a good defense.
Biometrics are good for identification, i.e. you take someone's fingerprint and compare it to a database. Someone can't show up with a severed or fake one and fool you with it.
It does not work for authentication, however. Imagine a password that you can never change and you leave pieces of it everywhere you go... well that's exactly what your fingerprint is. Maybe retina scans are better, but I have serious doubts, the biggest being that if it ever does become compromised, again, you can't change it. Voice recognition is not secure either, you could easily be recorded and/or have your voice synthesized.
Also this:
[I]f an app simultaneously requires a thumbprint, a retina scan, and a vocal recognition signature, it would be close to impossible for a bad actor to replicate that in the seconds needed to open the app.
We still are, believe it or not. There have been many checks against Trump's power in the short time he's been President, mostly from the judiciary, but also some from Congress as well. The new FBI director will require Congressional approval, and there are at least a few Republican Senators who are wary enough not to put some toady in... I hope.
The areas where Trump has far more latitude are things like the Department of Justice, immigration enforcement, regulatory agencies, etc. So it's not surprising to see him have the most effect there.
Of course the final check on him is impeachment, potentially. But (I didn't know this because I didn't live through it) apparently Watergate took 2 years to unfold before Nixon resigned... So no matter what, even if the Russia thing turns out to be the worst it could be, we're in for the long haul.
Net neutrality boils down to a set of networking rules and principles that could be laid out in no more than about 8 pages.
While the rules themselves might only require 8 pages, what's missing is procedure, enforcement, oversight, penalties, etc. All of those things are necessary if the rules themselves are to have any meaning.
Consider this simple rule: "People aren't allowed to kill each other." By your logic, these 7 words are the extent to which the laws against murder should be defined. Any additions beyond that must be for nefarious purposes.
Even more common was that two-earner households became one-earner households. Women with young children are the most likely to drop out of the labor force.
Isn't this the way it used to be back in the days when America was Great. You know, how we're supposedly trying to Make it Again?
Unemployment percentage is a useless number by itself.
You can say the same thing about any number. GDP is useless by itself because if I tell you it's "1.3 trillion Shmeckles" then your next question will be what the fuck is the value of a "Shmeckle". Shit, I guess I need more numbers to make GDP not useless.
Apparently there are a few different designs to deal with that. One of the most common is to simply type the "Pinyin" (Mandarin transliterated using the Latin alphabet), which is then interpreted by software to generate the correct characters.
I am considering the number of speakers to be the metric, not whether they use that language the most. The set of people who speak English is larger than the set of people who speak any other language.
It doesn't matter if most of those people speak something else most of the time, because we are talking about whether English will be replaced as the so-called "international" language. To me (you may disagree), this means answering the following question: what language will 2 people with different native tongues most likely communicate with? The answer to that, in your scenario, is still English.
It's not a "trick"... it's exactly how Unemployment is calculated, always: 100 * (# people with jobs) / (# people in the workforce). This is not a number that requires you to look at the details at all, just the most basic understanding of what the hell it actually means.
To be in the "workforce" you have to be actively looking for a job (it's not just "after a year"). If you spend 3 years actively looking for a job but remain without one, you will still be counted as "in the workforce". If we didn't do this, then "Unemployment" would be calculated much higher than it really is, with all the children, people in school, stay-at-home parents, retirees, etc. who shouldn't be counted as part of the workforce.
The Labor Participation Rate is a different number, with a different meaning, and is not a "replacement" or "better version" of Unemployment. In the same way GNP is not meant to "replace" GDP, they represent different (albeit related) things.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not. Starcraft is nothing like Starship Troopers, in the sense that Saving Private Ryan is nothing like Hogan's Heroes, in spite of them both being about Americans in the Second World War.
Pretty much any RPG. For a particular example, I believe The Witcher 3 is supposed to have the equivalent of 4-5 novels worth of dialog.
Game stories don't really make great movie stories. First, they are too short.
Generally, I would think the opposite is true. Many games have stories that would require a Game of Thrones style multi-season TV series to cover them.
I said it was LCD. I also said it was her laptop.
I think it's all supposed to trickle down somehow.
Well the thing about smart phones is a lot of them have OLED screens, where it makes more sense that displaying a black pixel uses less power than a white pixel. Although TBH I don't know for sure if that is the case.
They're surprisingly nice, too! I can hardly distinguish their light from a real 60 watt incandescent. Not like the original CFLs that gave everything a strange tint
The key is to make sure you get the right color temperature. For the "soft-white" look that everyone loves from incandescents, you want 2700K.
Reminds me of a few years ago my sister (who is very environmentally conscious) was using Blackle instead of Google in order to save energy (they even advertise the number of watt hours "saved" under the search bar).
She was a bit dejected when I informed her that LCD screens don't use less energy displaying black vs. white, since black is merely produced by blocking the light, and that the only way to save power was to turn the brightness on her laptop down.
Well prices are expected to go up over time due to inflation. The real problem is that wages have been stagnant, and haven't kept pace with inflation.
The DMCA is a terrible leftist law passed in 1996 by a voice vote in the Republican controlled House and unanimous consent in the Republican controlled Senate.
Reminds me of CIA agent Colonel Flagg in M*A*S*H: "We'll make sure you remain loyal to the country that's going to hound your every step!"
Yeah, that's how we catch the terrorists, keep detaining the same guy 20 times.
You make some interesting points. However I think one major problem with your argument is that it assumes the only way to be offensive is by exploiting flaws in the system. There are other ways to be offensive, and one of the most effective of those has been exploiting flaws in the humans using the system.
The other thing is that I really can't see how the risk of leaving these exploits open will ever be overtaken by the potential "offensive" gains. The potential damage to institutions, businesses, the economy... I mean this time was only "so" bad, next time it could be much much worse.
Also consider the matter of scale. You don't need to be a government to use these exploits. Leaving them open means putting that power in the hands of anyone who finds it. What good is all that offensive capability when you can't direct it at something like a government, with known facilities and targets to attack? What good do they do you against a small group like the ones that attacked the British NHS? Not a whole lot.
I think cyber warfare is a case where the best offense is actually a good defense.
Biometrics are good for identification, i.e. you take someone's fingerprint and compare it to a database. Someone can't show up with a severed or fake one and fool you with it.
It does not work for authentication, however. Imagine a password that you can never change and you leave pieces of it everywhere you go... well that's exactly what your fingerprint is. Maybe retina scans are better, but I have serious doubts, the biggest being that if it ever does become compromised, again, you can't change it. Voice recognition is not secure either, you could easily be recorded and/or have your voice synthesized.
Also this:
[I]f an app simultaneously requires a thumbprint, a retina scan, and a vocal recognition signature, it would be close to impossible for a bad actor to replicate that in the seconds needed to open the app.
is complete bullshit.
We still are, believe it or not. There have been many checks against Trump's power in the short time he's been President, mostly from the judiciary, but also some from Congress as well. The new FBI director will require Congressional approval, and there are at least a few Republican Senators who are wary enough not to put some toady in... I hope.
The areas where Trump has far more latitude are things like the Department of Justice, immigration enforcement, regulatory agencies, etc. So it's not surprising to see him have the most effect there.
Of course the final check on him is impeachment, potentially. But (I didn't know this because I didn't live through it) apparently Watergate took 2 years to unfold before Nixon resigned... So no matter what, even if the Russia thing turns out to be the worst it could be, we're in for the long haul.
Net neutrality boils down to a set of networking rules and principles that could be laid out in no more than about 8 pages.
While the rules themselves might only require 8 pages, what's missing is procedure, enforcement, oversight, penalties, etc. All of those things are necessary if the rules themselves are to have any meaning.
Consider this simple rule: "People aren't allowed to kill each other." By your logic, these 7 words are the extent to which the laws against murder should be defined. Any additions beyond that must be for nefarious purposes.
That was kind of the point I was making.
Even more common was that two-earner households became one-earner households. Women with young children are the most likely to drop out of the labor force.
Isn't this the way it used to be back in the days when America was Great. You know, how we're supposedly trying to Make it Again?
Hindsight 2020 is what CNN will call their coverage of the next Presidential election.
Boy do we ever need -1 Incoherent.
How would they reliably know how many people are looking for jobs?
The same way all of these types of things are done, with surveys.
Unemployment percentage is a useless number by itself.
You can say the same thing about any number. GDP is useless by itself because if I tell you it's "1.3 trillion Shmeckles" then your next question will be what the fuck is the value of a "Shmeckle". Shit, I guess I need more numbers to make GDP not useless.
Apparently there are a few different designs to deal with that. One of the most common is to simply type the "Pinyin" (Mandarin transliterated using the Latin alphabet), which is then interpreted by software to generate the correct characters.
I think that demonstrates my point pretty well.
I am considering the number of speakers to be the metric, not whether they use that language the most. The set of people who speak English is larger than the set of people who speak any other language.
It doesn't matter if most of those people speak something else most of the time, because we are talking about whether English will be replaced as the so-called "international" language. To me (you may disagree), this means answering the following question: what language will 2 people with different native tongues most likely communicate with? The answer to that, in your scenario, is still English.
It's not a "trick"... it's exactly how Unemployment is calculated, always: 100 * (# people with jobs) / (# people in the workforce). This is not a number that requires you to look at the details at all, just the most basic understanding of what the hell it actually means.
To be in the "workforce" you have to be actively looking for a job (it's not just "after a year"). If you spend 3 years actively looking for a job but remain without one, you will still be counted as "in the workforce". If we didn't do this, then "Unemployment" would be calculated much higher than it really is, with all the children, people in school, stay-at-home parents, retirees, etc. who shouldn't be counted as part of the workforce.
The Labor Participation Rate is a different number, with a different meaning, and is not a "replacement" or "better version" of Unemployment. In the same way GNP is not meant to "replace" GDP, they represent different (albeit related) things.