Everything you said was correct, but you didn't address the most common misuse of margin of error by the media: even if two numbers are within a margin of error of each other, that doesn't make the statistic meaningless.
When comparing two numbers, being outside the margin of error only means that you are at least 95% certain that one number is bigger than the other. Being inside the margin of error doesn't instantly drop that confidence down to 0, or even 50-50. Two numbers with slightly overlapping margins of error might have a confidence of 94.9%, but people who don't understand statistics will automatically discredit the study they would have accepted at 95.1% confidence.
I'm not a basketball fan, but don't a vast majority of the players have college degrees? Even meeting the minimum requirements for a degree while under the time pressure athletes face is a significant academic accomplishment.
There are two types of people who get good grades: people for whom learning new things comes easily, and people that don't learn new things easily but are extremely persistent. Both of those attributes translate into success in the workplace.
There are smart people who are unmotivated by the inaneness of public school. For example, I nearly flunked spelling class the year I won the school spelling bee. There are also people who change their work habits to become more persistent when their livelihood depends on it.
However, in both of those cases, they are capable of getting good grades, even if they decided it wasn't worth trying. I believe there are very few people who are successful in the workplace who would not be capable of transferring that success to schoolwork if they so chose.
There's a biblical saying: "By their fruits ye shall know them." Unless someone with poor grades has some extraordinary extracurricular accomplishments, they're going to have a hard time convincing a potential employer that they have the intelligence or persistence to succeed at a job. "I can do it, I just never have" is a hard sell. They may eventually get to the same point as someone with good grades, but it will take a lot longer.
spend the money you've been allocated on something productive instead of expensive and content-free TV ads.
I hate the mudslinging ads as much as the next guy, but this last election without any ads at all in the governor's race told me how much people depend on ads, unfortunately, for their only source of political information. For example, illegal immigration was the biggest issue in Arizona. There were several anti-illegal immigrant ballot propositions that received huge support, around 85-15%. But the governor who made it her personal mission to veto literally those exact same measures was re-elected by 70-30%. That's a big disconnect.
I asked several people who planned to vote for her what they thought the governor's position was on that and a variety of other issues, and they usually told me the exact opposite of the governor's actual position. When I told them that, they had a hard time believing me, because they had never seen it on TV. It was the "no news is good news" phenomenon. Unless you read her veto letters from the government website, there was no way to know. Exit interviews showed the exact same phenomenon.
Granted, political ads are frequently misleading, but at least after a while of back and forth you can figure out what the truth probably is, or at least get prompted to research more reputable sources. If people vote for a candidate I don't like because of a philosophical disagreement, I can live with that. If someone votes for that same candidate because they are mistaken about his or her true position on the issues, that is a tragedy for both of us.
The bottom line is, don't knock the political ads until you've experienced what happens without them.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Foreign enemy? Not only was this law passed in 1986 when Americans couldn't care less about terrorism, this particular case was a fraud investigation of the Enzyte natural male enhancement "smiling Bob" people.
Also, you are using Madison's quote to try to prove its converse. President Madison certainly didn't believe that fighting a foreign enemy always leads to tyranny and oppression.
Not only that, the mere existence of this ruling shows that if tyranny was allowed to creep in through this law, it was not allowed to persist.
I think the matching funds thing just sounds like lip service, since those who need the money the least get the most from the general fund.
I think I explained it wrong. If you are privately funded and you raise $1000, all your publicly funded opponents get $1000 from the general fund, but you get nothing from the general fund.
Taxpayer support? The money should come from those who want to spend it. The campaign contributions should all go thru one agency/filter. They all put their money in a pot, and they all draw from it equally.
The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it. There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality.
Don't know if you want to run yet? You don't get to dip into the pool yet, either.
The trouble is, when you put this together with the rule about not spending any money outside the fund, what do you do when you want to use a web site that was developed before you became eligible for funding? That web site would be an "extra" expenditure. That's just one example of things that pop up when you actually put it into practice.
This is a surprising comment to me, given the general political awareness and libertarian leanings on slashdot. Not only has it been seriously discussed, it has been implemented in places. In Arizona, for example, statewide candidates have the option to run publicly funded campaigns due to an initiative that passed a few years ago. They must collect a certain number of $5 donations to qualify, then they get a set amount for the primary, and another set amount for the general election. If someone decides to go the private-funded route, whatever money they raise is matched dollar for dollar in the public fund.
There are a number of glaring problems with it:
Freedom of speech issues. Think of the politician you most despise. Now imagine being forced to contribute to his or her campaign.
The amounts were too small to mount effective campaigns, providing barely enough for one mailer and maybe one late-night TV commercial. This gives a huge advantage to candidates with more name recognition. Taxpayers wouldn't support any higher amounts.
If you want enough money to actually get your message out, you have to go the private route, with the matching system effectively raising funds for your opponent.
It creates all sorts of bizarre conditions on when money can be spent. For example, how to account for resources that are used from pre-announcement through post-election, like a web site.
There is no time for violations to be sorted out in the courts before the election happens. Therefore, if someone breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, there is no remedy until after the election, and no way to determine if it would have affected the outcome. With the small amount of funds, violations that would otherwise be insignificant play a much bigger part.
I don't know. Suicide bombers don't strike me as the type who are really concerned about their health. Maybe some life insurance for them and accidental dismemberment for IED makers?
Yes, but according to the latest population estimates there's a 70.8% chance he is right. I think that probability is a bit high to call him flat out wrong. For employing a useful rule of thumb, his argument is hereby upgraded to "not necessarily correct."
Take a look at the preview. I don't know a lot about point buy, but the saga edition replaces class traits with talent trees. If I understand them correctly, once you have access to a certain talent tree, you can progress up that tree no matter what class you take levels in. The article has lots of examples of very flexible multiclass characters, like a jedi who grew up on the streets and has mostly scoundrel characteristics with specialized complementary jedi abilities.
Don't think of it as fatigue, then. Think of it as a loss of concentration, the enemy adapting, or something like that. Some of your concerns were actually addressed in the new version of the rules. That's what the reviewer means by "star warsiness."
For example, a higher level character mowing down a group of cannon fodder enemies is now possible within the rules. Jedi do have essentially unlimited powers, but are limited in how many they can use at once. Resting outside of combat for a minute, spending force points, or rolling a natural 20 on a use force check will restore them. That's a huge improvement over say, D&D where spellcasters have to stop for the night when they run out of spell slots.
Even though these sorts of limitations seem unrealistic when you examine them, I think they actually add more realism and variety to the game. Instead of having a character just use his most powerful force power over and over, he has to be more well-rounded and combine different force powers with lightsaber attacks in creative ways. But he doesn't have to hold back on an encounter because he doesn't know what the GM has in store for the next one. Rewatch the movies and see how many times Qui-Gon uses a force push in a single encounter. You'll rarely see it more than once per encounter, and probably never see it twice back to back.
Besides, from a purely meta-game point of view, having nearly unlimited power is only fun for a short time. Think about what you do after you master a video game. Unless you can find a way to make it more difficult for yourself, like "I'm only going to use my knife this time," you eventually stop playing.
Human brains can definitely do multiple complex tasks in parallel. They just have to practice long enough to be considered one conscious task. For example, I play the organ at church. This requires several complex tasks to be done simultaneously: reading four to six notes spread across two or three lines of music, playing four to five notes with hands and one with my foot with precise timing, preparing to play the next set of notes so a smooth transition can be made, maintaining the correct volume, keeping an eye on the conductor, and keeping an ear on the congregation.
When I first started, I plain couldn't do it in parallel. If the song wasn't simple or slow enough to serialize everything, it was impossible to play. After a while, I could do it with intense concentration. Now, my brain has one task labeled "organ playing," and with a small amount of concentration I can do other things at the same time, like carry on a conversation, think about something else, or sit back and objectively enjoy the music. Have you ever been startled to realize you haven't been consciously driving for a while? Remember how hard it was your first time behind the wheel?
In fact, I find it difficult to work on a task if all my "concentration slots" aren't filled. For example, I get distracted very easily if I don't listen to music or conversation while working on a mundane task.
CCing everyone and their boss is not really a good idea, because it contains an implicit threat.
Anytime you record a communication, a threat is implied. A couple of months before I was fired last year, I started receiving bizarrely-worded emails from a peer. After some time (before I knew my job was at risk but after it was too late to do anything), I realized the only way it made sense to send those emails with that wording was if they were BCCed to my boss.
However, because the accusations were largely unfounded due to mitigating circumstances my boss was aware of that my peer wasn't, and because my boss never said anything, I assumed if my boss was involved he wasn't taking the accusations seriously. I didn't have any direct evidence he was involved anyway, so therefore I didn't feel a need to resolve the situation until it was too late.
Two pieces of advice from my experience: 1) Treat every email you receive or send like the person who can damage you most has already seen it (applies to voice mail too, Alec Baldwin), and 2) Either threaten someone outright, or don't do it at all.
If your goal is to get someone fired, a disguised threat works fine. If your goal is to change the behavior for the good of the individual and the company, you need to be as forthright as possible about the choices at hand and the consequences of each choice.
If you want to play around with Microcontrollers [pic16 series for example] you MUST learn assembly.
Not necessarily. A huge number of "play around" projects in articles for people who are not computer engineers are written for the BASIC stamp. PICs are mostly for people who pretty much already know assembly or have a strong desire to learn.
I suspect the main reason people on slashdot like assembly is that it helps us feel smug and elite. Come on, admit it. That and cracking keys for software that has the audacity to be non-free.
Allow me to respond as a reformed slobbo. I used to think that my clutter "worked for me" until I was forced by a corporate security policy to have the top of my desk clean whenever I was away from it. What I found was the number of things I needed quick access to for my daily work was a lot fewer than I had thought — on the order of two to five items. I also found that I feel calmer and with a neater desk, and that it's easier to keep my desk clean of dust (which I'm allergic to). It's also easier to focus on a task, because I don't accidentally glance at some other piece of unfinished business while I'm working.
The time it finally hit me, was when I was looking for one thing or another (I don't remember the specifics, this was 25-30 years ago), I saw two things together, which suddenly gave me a brilliant idea of combination.
So, clutter is worth it because once in 30 years you might get a creative idea that you don't remember now and may have come up with in a tidy environment too?
Actually there's nothing stopping you from compiling and running a Gnome from source on Fedora.
Yes, but it's a lot more involved than emerge -u gnome.
When I upgraded from Fedora 4 to Fedora 5
Back when I was distro shopping, I would try a different distro every time an upgrade was due. I landed on gentoo largely because there weren't huge, periodical, system-wide upgrades. Individual packages are updated when they come out.
I was playing mp3s in xmms within about three commands.
I wasn't even aware that this was still an issue for Linux. Gentoo handles that sort of thing automatically.
Other than rampant elitism or the need in an engineering environment to have an extreme level of control over every bit of disk space and processor time I really can't think of a good reason to use Gentoo over a binary based distro.
One thing you may not have thought of is there are several enhanced security features such as stack smash protection that must be compiled in. I don't know about the current state of the binary distros, but when I started using those features, gentoo was the only distro that supported them for every package.
When the draconian pseudoephedrine restrictions came out, I googled meth recipes to see if the restriction would even prevent significant amounts of meth from being made or if it just made it inconvenient for us allergy sufferers. Bad idea. All the links kept urging me to admit I have a problem and check myself in to a rehab center, saying my IP was recorded and sent to the DEA.
I can imagine novelists or journalists doing research on undetectable poisons, etc. Since the DEA never called me to follow up, I guess it's safe to google anything as long as you don't commit the commensurate crime.
I'm not normally the RTFM type, but using a package manager to install software instead of downloading it would be one of the first things someone learns when they read the instructions.
has Congress really studied the impact of DST shift?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this hasn't been widely reported — the mainstream media actually reading the text of a bill would be revolutionary.
Congress is using this bill to study the impact. The bill calls for a study in 9 months to see if the DST change actually had any impact, and consider changing it back if it didn't. So programmers who didn't design for maintenance might get another chance sooner than they thought.
As far as credibility goes, Enderle's name was only vaguely familiar to me. My first thought was, "that guy that plays Windows on the Windows/Mac commercials writes articles too?"
If you needed advice on how to secure your own personal data, who would you ask given the choice between google engineers or the IT department of some random government agency? No offense to government IT workers, but I think the choice is blindingly obvious from an objective viewpoint.
an amateur talks about ISO all the times because, unfortunately, that's the only adjustable metric about dP&S cameras.
It's not that you can't adjust the shutter speed — even my old 3.2 megapixel "glove box" camera can go from 15 seconds to 1/2000. The problem is that we have a whole generation of amateur photographers who learned photography backwards. They start by using the auto settings, which are getting better all the time, but are still less than ideal. The next thing they do to improve their pictures is learn how to fix them in photoshop. They find they are running into dynamic range problems, so they switch to raw mode to get more available dynamic range in post-processing.
At this point, their photographs are looking okay, but they are completely dependent on post-processing and have no idea what settings to use to get a picture right in the field.
It doesn't matter that suppressed movie guns are quieter than real life, because they make up for it by adding that rattle-click noise whenever the guns are lifted.
This sort of thing is okay for salvaging photos that can't be retaken, but no amount of computer correction can beat a photo taken with the proper camera settings. I'm an above average post-processor, but my favorite photographs usually don't need anything changed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything you said was correct, but you didn't address the most common misuse of margin of error by the media: even if two numbers are within a margin of error of each other, that doesn't make the statistic meaningless.
When comparing two numbers, being outside the margin of error only means that you are at least 95% certain that one number is bigger than the other. Being inside the margin of error doesn't instantly drop that confidence down to 0, or even 50-50. Two numbers with slightly overlapping margins of error might have a confidence of 94.9%, but people who don't understand statistics will automatically discredit the study they would have accepted at 95.1% confidence.
I'm not a basketball fan, but don't a vast majority of the players have college degrees? Even meeting the minimum requirements for a degree while under the time pressure athletes face is a significant academic accomplishment.
There are two types of people who get good grades: people for whom learning new things comes easily, and people that don't learn new things easily but are extremely persistent. Both of those attributes translate into success in the workplace.
There are smart people who are unmotivated by the inaneness of public school. For example, I nearly flunked spelling class the year I won the school spelling bee. There are also people who change their work habits to become more persistent when their livelihood depends on it.
However, in both of those cases, they are capable of getting good grades, even if they decided it wasn't worth trying. I believe there are very few people who are successful in the workplace who would not be capable of transferring that success to schoolwork if they so chose.
There's a biblical saying: "By their fruits ye shall know them." Unless someone with poor grades has some extraordinary extracurricular accomplishments, they're going to have a hard time convincing a potential employer that they have the intelligence or persistence to succeed at a job. "I can do it, I just never have" is a hard sell. They may eventually get to the same point as someone with good grades, but it will take a lot longer.
I hate the mudslinging ads as much as the next guy, but this last election without any ads at all in the governor's race told me how much people depend on ads, unfortunately, for their only source of political information. For example, illegal immigration was the biggest issue in Arizona. There were several anti-illegal immigrant ballot propositions that received huge support, around 85-15%. But the governor who made it her personal mission to veto literally those exact same measures was re-elected by 70-30%. That's a big disconnect.
I asked several people who planned to vote for her what they thought the governor's position was on that and a variety of other issues, and they usually told me the exact opposite of the governor's actual position. When I told them that, they had a hard time believing me, because they had never seen it on TV. It was the "no news is good news" phenomenon. Unless you read her veto letters from the government website, there was no way to know. Exit interviews showed the exact same phenomenon.
Granted, political ads are frequently misleading, but at least after a while of back and forth you can figure out what the truth probably is, or at least get prompted to research more reputable sources. If people vote for a candidate I don't like because of a philosophical disagreement, I can live with that. If someone votes for that same candidate because they are mistaken about his or her true position on the issues, that is a tragedy for both of us.
The bottom line is, don't knock the political ads until you've experienced what happens without them.
Foreign enemy? Not only was this law passed in 1986 when Americans couldn't care less about terrorism, this particular case was a fraud investigation of the Enzyte natural male enhancement "smiling Bob" people.
Also, you are using Madison's quote to try to prove its converse. President Madison certainly didn't believe that fighting a foreign enemy always leads to tyranny and oppression.
Not only that, the mere existence of this ruling shows that if tyranny was allowed to creep in through this law, it was not allowed to persist.
I think I explained it wrong. If you are privately funded and you raise $1000, all your publicly funded opponents get $1000 from the general fund, but you get nothing from the general fund.
The point is that no one wants to spend their money to fund candidates they don't agree with, so the only way it works at all is to fund it through taxes. I'm all for people having an equal opportunity to speak. I just don't think I should have to pay for it. There's a huge difference between equal opportunity and enforcing equality.
The trouble is, when you put this together with the rule about not spending any money outside the fund, what do you do when you want to use a web site that was developed before you became eligible for funding? That web site would be an "extra" expenditure. That's just one example of things that pop up when you actually put it into practice.
This is a surprising comment to me, given the general political awareness and libertarian leanings on slashdot. Not only has it been seriously discussed, it has been implemented in places. In Arizona, for example, statewide candidates have the option to run publicly funded campaigns due to an initiative that passed a few years ago. They must collect a certain number of $5 donations to qualify, then they get a set amount for the primary, and another set amount for the general election. If someone decides to go the private-funded route, whatever money they raise is matched dollar for dollar in the public fund.
There are a number of glaring problems with it:
I don't know. Suicide bombers don't strike me as the type who are really concerned about their health. Maybe some life insurance for them and accidental dismemberment for IED makers?
Yes, but according to the latest population estimates there's a 70.8% chance he is right. I think that probability is a bit high to call him flat out wrong. For employing a useful rule of thumb, his argument is hereby upgraded to "not necessarily correct."
Take a look at the preview. I don't know a lot about point buy, but the saga edition replaces class traits with talent trees. If I understand them correctly, once you have access to a certain talent tree, you can progress up that tree no matter what class you take levels in. The article has lots of examples of very flexible multiclass characters, like a jedi who grew up on the streets and has mostly scoundrel characteristics with specialized complementary jedi abilities.
Don't think of it as fatigue, then. Think of it as a loss of concentration, the enemy adapting, or something like that. Some of your concerns were actually addressed in the new version of the rules. That's what the reviewer means by "star warsiness."
For example, a higher level character mowing down a group of cannon fodder enemies is now possible within the rules. Jedi do have essentially unlimited powers, but are limited in how many they can use at once. Resting outside of combat for a minute, spending force points, or rolling a natural 20 on a use force check will restore them. That's a huge improvement over say, D&D where spellcasters have to stop for the night when they run out of spell slots.
Even though these sorts of limitations seem unrealistic when you examine them, I think they actually add more realism and variety to the game. Instead of having a character just use his most powerful force power over and over, he has to be more well-rounded and combine different force powers with lightsaber attacks in creative ways. But he doesn't have to hold back on an encounter because he doesn't know what the GM has in store for the next one. Rewatch the movies and see how many times Qui-Gon uses a force push in a single encounter. You'll rarely see it more than once per encounter, and probably never see it twice back to back.
Besides, from a purely meta-game point of view, having nearly unlimited power is only fun for a short time. Think about what you do after you master a video game. Unless you can find a way to make it more difficult for yourself, like "I'm only going to use my knife this time," you eventually stop playing.
Human brains can definitely do multiple complex tasks in parallel. They just have to practice long enough to be considered one conscious task. For example, I play the organ at church. This requires several complex tasks to be done simultaneously: reading four to six notes spread across two or three lines of music, playing four to five notes with hands and one with my foot with precise timing, preparing to play the next set of notes so a smooth transition can be made, maintaining the correct volume, keeping an eye on the conductor, and keeping an ear on the congregation.
When I first started, I plain couldn't do it in parallel. If the song wasn't simple or slow enough to serialize everything, it was impossible to play. After a while, I could do it with intense concentration. Now, my brain has one task labeled "organ playing," and with a small amount of concentration I can do other things at the same time, like carry on a conversation, think about something else, or sit back and objectively enjoy the music. Have you ever been startled to realize you haven't been consciously driving for a while? Remember how hard it was your first time behind the wheel?
In fact, I find it difficult to work on a task if all my "concentration slots" aren't filled. For example, I get distracted very easily if I don't listen to music or conversation while working on a mundane task.
Anytime you record a communication, a threat is implied. A couple of months before I was fired last year, I started receiving bizarrely-worded emails from a peer. After some time (before I knew my job was at risk but after it was too late to do anything), I realized the only way it made sense to send those emails with that wording was if they were BCCed to my boss.
However, because the accusations were largely unfounded due to mitigating circumstances my boss was aware of that my peer wasn't, and because my boss never said anything, I assumed if my boss was involved he wasn't taking the accusations seriously. I didn't have any direct evidence he was involved anyway, so therefore I didn't feel a need to resolve the situation until it was too late.
Two pieces of advice from my experience: 1) Treat every email you receive or send like the person who can damage you most has already seen it (applies to voice mail too, Alec Baldwin), and 2) Either threaten someone outright, or don't do it at all.
If your goal is to get someone fired, a disguised threat works fine. If your goal is to change the behavior for the good of the individual and the company, you need to be as forthright as possible about the choices at hand and the consequences of each choice.
Not necessarily. A huge number of "play around" projects in articles for people who are not computer engineers are written for the BASIC stamp. PICs are mostly for people who pretty much already know assembly or have a strong desire to learn.
I suspect the main reason people on slashdot like assembly is that it helps us feel smug and elite. Come on, admit it. That and cracking keys for software that has the audacity to be non-free.
Allow me to respond as a reformed slobbo. I used to think that my clutter "worked for me" until I was forced by a corporate security policy to have the top of my desk clean whenever I was away from it. What I found was the number of things I needed quick access to for my daily work was a lot fewer than I had thought — on the order of two to five items. I also found that I feel calmer and with a neater desk, and that it's easier to keep my desk clean of dust (which I'm allergic to). It's also easier to focus on a task, because I don't accidentally glance at some other piece of unfinished business while I'm working.
So, clutter is worth it because once in 30 years you might get a creative idea that you don't remember now and may have come up with in a tidy environment too?
Yes, but it's a lot more involved than emerge -u gnome.
Back when I was distro shopping, I would try a different distro every time an upgrade was due. I landed on gentoo largely because there weren't huge, periodical, system-wide upgrades. Individual packages are updated when they come out.
I wasn't even aware that this was still an issue for Linux. Gentoo handles that sort of thing automatically.
One thing you may not have thought of is there are several enhanced security features such as stack smash protection that must be compiled in. I don't know about the current state of the binary distros, but when I started using those features, gentoo was the only distro that supported them for every package.
When the draconian pseudoephedrine restrictions came out, I googled meth recipes to see if the restriction would even prevent significant amounts of meth from being made or if it just made it inconvenient for us allergy sufferers. Bad idea. All the links kept urging me to admit I have a problem and check myself in to a rehab center, saying my IP was recorded and sent to the DEA.
I can imagine novelists or journalists doing research on undetectable poisons, etc. Since the DEA never called me to follow up, I guess it's safe to google anything as long as you don't commit the commensurate crime.
I'm not normally the RTFM type, but using a package manager to install software instead of downloading it would be one of the first things someone learns when they read the instructions.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this hasn't been widely reported — the mainstream media actually reading the text of a bill would be revolutionary.
Congress is using this bill to study the impact. The bill calls for a study in 9 months to see if the DST change actually had any impact, and consider changing it back if it didn't. So programmers who didn't design for maintenance might get another chance sooner than they thought.
As far as credibility goes, Enderle's name was only vaguely familiar to me. My first thought was, "that guy that plays Windows on the Windows/Mac commercials writes articles too?"
Because people are locked in to MS Windows, and it isn't easy on Windows.
Outside of the Microsoft world, that sort of remote display functionality is taken for granted.
If you needed advice on how to secure your own personal data, who would you ask given the choice between google engineers or the IT department of some random government agency? No offense to government IT workers, but I think the choice is blindingly obvious from an objective viewpoint.
It's not that you can't adjust the shutter speed — even my old 3.2 megapixel "glove box" camera can go from 15 seconds to 1/2000. The problem is that we have a whole generation of amateur photographers who learned photography backwards. They start by using the auto settings, which are getting better all the time, but are still less than ideal. The next thing they do to improve their pictures is learn how to fix them in photoshop. They find they are running into dynamic range problems, so they switch to raw mode to get more available dynamic range in post-processing.
At this point, their photographs are looking okay, but they are completely dependent on post-processing and have no idea what settings to use to get a picture right in the field.
It doesn't matter that suppressed movie guns are quieter than real life, because they make up for it by adding that rattle-click noise whenever the guns are lifted.
This sort of thing is okay for salvaging photos that can't be retaken, but no amount of computer correction can beat a photo taken with the proper camera settings. I'm an above average post-processor, but my favorite photographs usually don't need anything changed at all.