For the same reason drones have not replaced the manned air force. There is often a lot of EM noise on a battefield, and some of it is quite intentional. You therefore need your soldiers - human or robotic - to be autonomous. Real combat isn't like Red Alert. The general is not clicking on individual soldiers and telling them where to walk, he's telling a captain to secure a specific objective, that captain is giving orders to squads, and NCOs are making the realtime tactical decisions. Programming that level of autonomy into a robot is really hard. It needs to be able to understand high-level objectives, like secure an area, protect civilians in another, and so on. For now, at least, it's a lot easier to put a human on the ground. Putting fewer humans on the ground is a good idea though, because people back home complain if they don't come back.
For some reason, the original Rainbow 6 slipped my mind in my above post. That was much more realistic than either. It was really, really tedious in multiplayer. Rounds usually involved 10 minutes of waiting and slight shuffling, then a 10 second firefight. Counterstrike was often similar, although it was a bit less realistic, so there would be more shoot, retreat, try attacking from another direction.
That said, I recently played Ghost Recon, and it was still fun, although I only played the single-player campaign. Very realistic: if you're lucky, you can survive a single shot, but if it's anywhere in the head or chest you're down immediately, guns had a realistic amount of ammunition and reload times, and only a few were accurate over moderate or long ranges. One thing made it unrealistic: if you messed up, you could restore from a save game from a minute or so earlier. Playing through the entire thing without resorting to saves and restores would be possible, but really tedious.
I agree. The unlicensed fusion reactor that someone is operating - for half the day! - within sight of my house must be shut down immediately. It's already given cancer to millions of people, and that number is going to keep increasing until something is done!
Well, my MEP is an active campaigner for the FFII. This is exactly the kind of thing she needs as a case study for her colleagues. My MP won by a very narrow margin last time so is looking to spend this term, at least, proving to his constituency that they should vote for him.
Why, are your elected representatives not on your side? Have you talked to them, or just assumed that they aren't? And if you have, what are you doing to prevent them from being elected again next time?
Diablo II also had PvP. You could have form alliances, or you could fight. If you killed another player, you could steal his ear as a trophy and loot his corpse. That was why most people who played online against people that they didn't know used battle.net, where the characters were stored on the server and couldn't be modified. You could create a single-player battle.net game to level up. Alternatively, you had client-stored characters, which you could use on a LAN game or in single player, without an Internet connection. Both modes were available, and people who had no intention of playing online were not forced to have an Internet connection to play the game.
No, not really. Almost all of the reports I've read have had the phrase 'not enough police' somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure if they actually did deploy the army - they were still thinking about it by the time the rioting had peaked, so they probably didn't get around to it at all, and definitely didn't in a timely fashion.
I swear, is there some rule saying you have to be technologically retarded to get into politics?
Pretty much. If you know enough about complex systems to understand modern technology, then politics looks like a horribly broken machine, and one that you don't have the power to fix, even if you did know how to, and wouldn't even if you became President / Prime Minister.
Well, we've sent you guys a load of our police. Send them back when you've finished smashing up your infrastructure. Oh, and we'll happily take on contracts to help you rebuild too, at a very modest rate.
They wouldn't suggest shutting down the POTS network
Either you're very young, or you've not studied history or telecoms. POTS networks in the USA and UK were designed to be able to be restricted to emergency services and government use in times of civil disturbance throughout the cold war, and probably after.
Anyway, I'm glad Cameron has done this. Maybe now people will start thinking before opting in to centrally controlled communication systems in the future...
Does that contradict anything that I said? The non-breeding members of a pack are quite often able to breed, but are not permitted to by the pack hierarchy. Mind you, your definition seems to imply that post andropause / menopause individuals can't be celibate, which would surprise a lot of elderly priests...
Sometimes, cheating in multiplayer is fine too. We had one LAN game of Diablo II where most of us had characters that had completed the game once so could play on the second difficulty level. One player had never played the game before. Someone found a character editor online and we put together a character for him that was at approximately the same level as the rest of us. With something like battle.net, that would have been impossible.
Obviously not, but many of them were the target market for Diablo II. I played it a lot and I never played it online. I either played on a LAN, with friends, or in single player. Cheating was never a problem. For people who wanted the online experience, there was battle.net, which stored everything server-side to prevent cheating. I played it a lot on the train and so on, where there was no Internet (or, expensive Internet that vanishes as soon as you go through a tunnel). I won't be buying Diablo II.
Actually, that's not unnatural. Lots of species have non-breeding subsets. Most insects, for example, but also a lot of pack mammals. The non-breeders are expendable members of the pack that will defend it from threats and ensure the survival of the rest (allowing their genes to be carried by the offspring of their siblings).
that can understand natural language, perform a database search and reply to your question (with absolutely zero understanding of the actual question or what it is answering by the way
Is the science as bad as his other books? I picked up a couple in the local charity shop recently. The stories are fun, but the science is just painful. Even someone skim-reading Wikipedia would have a better understanding of the topics he covers than he seems to.
At best it means "knows more than the average joe on the streets"
So, again, how does that make Florian an expert? He's been accused of being a shill for Microsoft, but I don't think anyone with a budget the size of Microsoft's would hire anyone so inept - almost everything he says is wrong. On the subject of patents, he's less accurate than Magic 8 Ball, let alone the average Joe on the streets...
Slashdot Mirror
(allowing their genes to be carried by the offspring of their siblings).
Aliens is a better example. The exoskeleton in TFA is basically a glorified forklift truck.
For the same reason drones have not replaced the manned air force. There is often a lot of EM noise on a battefield, and some of it is quite intentional. You therefore need your soldiers - human or robotic - to be autonomous. Real combat isn't like Red Alert. The general is not clicking on individual soldiers and telling them where to walk, he's telling a captain to secure a specific objective, that captain is giving orders to squads, and NCOs are making the realtime tactical decisions. Programming that level of autonomy into a robot is really hard. It needs to be able to understand high-level objectives, like secure an area, protect civilians in another, and so on. For now, at least, it's a lot easier to put a human on the ground. Putting fewer humans on the ground is a good idea though, because people back home complain if they don't come back.
For some reason, the original Rainbow 6 slipped my mind in my above post. That was much more realistic than either. It was really, really tedious in multiplayer. Rounds usually involved 10 minutes of waiting and slight shuffling, then a 10 second firefight. Counterstrike was often similar, although it was a bit less realistic, so there would be more shoot, retreat, try attacking from another direction.
That said, I recently played Ghost Recon, and it was still fun, although I only played the single-player campaign. Very realistic: if you're lucky, you can survive a single shot, but if it's anywhere in the head or chest you're down immediately, guns had a realistic amount of ammunition and reload times, and only a few were accurate over moderate or long ranges. One thing made it unrealistic: if you messed up, you could restore from a save game from a minute or so earlier. Playing through the entire thing without resorting to saves and restores would be possible, but really tedious.
I agree. The unlicensed fusion reactor that someone is operating - for half the day! - within sight of my house must be shut down immediately. It's already given cancer to millions of people, and that number is going to keep increasing until something is done!
No, that one just shows that God is a bit of a dick.
Only if he enjoyed it...
I'm expecting now that if I actually read TFA, I will discover that it was using a modified form of the common cold to treat headaches. In mice.
Well, my MEP is an active campaigner for the FFII. This is exactly the kind of thing she needs as a case study for her colleagues. My MP won by a very narrow margin last time so is looking to spend this term, at least, proving to his constituency that they should vote for him.
Why, are your elected representatives not on your side? Have you talked to them, or just assumed that they aren't? And if you have, what are you doing to prevent them from being elected again next time?
Diablo II also had PvP. You could have form alliances, or you could fight. If you killed another player, you could steal his ear as a trophy and loot his corpse. That was why most people who played online against people that they didn't know used battle.net, where the characters were stored on the server and couldn't be modified. You could create a single-player battle.net game to level up. Alternatively, you had client-stored characters, which you could use on a LAN game or in single player, without an Internet connection. Both modes were available, and people who had no intention of playing online were not forced to have an Internet connection to play the game.
No, not really. Almost all of the reports I've read have had the phrase 'not enough police' somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure if they actually did deploy the army - they were still thinking about it by the time the rioting had peaked, so they probably didn't get around to it at all, and definitely didn't in a timely fashion.
You realise that your post could have been a direct quote from David Cameron's election manifesto, I hope.
I swear, is there some rule saying you have to be technologically retarded to get into politics?
Pretty much. If you know enough about complex systems to understand modern technology, then politics looks like a horribly broken machine, and one that you don't have the power to fix, even if you did know how to, and wouldn't even if you became President / Prime Minister.
You're having the wrong referendum. Make London independent, and being in the same country with England doesn't seem so bad...
Well, we've sent you guys a load of our police. Send them back when you've finished smashing up your infrastructure. Oh, and we'll happily take on contracts to help you rebuild too, at a very modest rate.
They wouldn't suggest shutting down the POTS network
Either you're very young, or you've not studied history or telecoms. POTS networks in the USA and UK were designed to be able to be restricted to emergency services and government use in times of civil disturbance throughout the cold war, and probably after.
Anyway, I'm glad Cameron has done this. Maybe now people will start thinking before opting in to centrally controlled communication systems in the future...
Does that contradict anything that I said? The non-breeding members of a pack are quite often able to breed, but are not permitted to by the pack hierarchy. Mind you, your definition seems to imply that post andropause / menopause individuals can't be celibate, which would surprise a lot of elderly priests...
You seem to be under the impression that I'm in the USA. I'm not sure why my post would give you that impression...
Sometimes, cheating in multiplayer is fine too. We had one LAN game of Diablo II where most of us had characters that had completed the game once so could play on the second difficulty level. One player had never played the game before. Someone found a character editor online and we put together a character for him that was at approximately the same level as the rest of us. With something like battle.net, that would have been impossible.
Besides, this can be mostly blamed on pirates
Damn straight! Curse those pirates for breaking into Blizzard and adding stupid things into the middle of the design document! Something must be done!
Obviously not, but many of them were the target market for Diablo II. I played it a lot and I never played it online. I either played on a LAN, with friends, or in single player. Cheating was never a problem. For people who wanted the online experience, there was battle.net, which stored everything server-side to prevent cheating. I played it a lot on the train and so on, where there was no Internet (or, expensive Internet that vanishes as soon as you go through a tunnel). I won't be buying Diablo II.
Actually, that's not unnatural. Lots of species have non-breeding subsets. Most insects, for example, but also a lot of pack mammals. The non-breeders are expendable members of the pack that will defend it from threats and ensure the survival of the rest (allowing their genes to be carried by the offspring of their siblings).
that can understand natural language, perform a database search and reply to your question (with absolutely zero understanding of the actual question or what it is answering by the way
Sounds like some humans I've met...
Is the science as bad as his other books? I picked up a couple in the local charity shop recently. The stories are fun, but the science is just painful. Even someone skim-reading Wikipedia would have a better understanding of the topics he covers than he seems to.
At best it means "knows more than the average joe on the streets"
So, again, how does that make Florian an expert? He's been accused of being a shill for Microsoft, but I don't think anyone with a budget the size of Microsoft's would hire anyone so inept - almost everything he says is wrong. On the subject of patents, he's less accurate than Magic 8 Ball, let alone the average Joe on the streets...