Actually, they probably all received more money from their respective labels than X-Com ever got from the nations of the world. At least X-Com didn't have to pay it back...
Come to think of it, Sony making a secret partnership with the aliens would explain a lot of things.
1.) True, but the light can still be detected (think CCD sensors). Not as easily, though, granted.
2.) Okay, that depends on the laser. The ones used will probably not glow (brightly), unless someone decides that green lasers are best suited for weapon use. OTOH, once you go into Really Big Gun area I think that athmospheric ionization is going to be severe. There have been theoretical weapon designs that let a laser ionize the path to the target and then send huge amounts of electricity through that path... Once you pump enough energy through a gas you end up with plasma.
3.) Well, my point was that lasers are audible. It doesn't matter how it sounds, you're still going to hear it.
4.) AFAIK multiple pulses are the preferred way of destroying things. A single lethal pulse needs to have some serious power behind it, as it does its damage mostly at the surface level (unlike a bullet, which travels through the body). Multiple smaller pulses might be more feasible in a portable weapon, as they allow the gun to "dig into" the victim.
Finally) That's insanely expensive. If you already have someone who can paint the target you can use a guided missile instead of a huge direct-energy gun that requires a cargo plane full of batteries (which, in turn, requires copious amounts of kerosene just to stay ready). Or you use a large caliber rifle; those go through body armor, too. If you're talking about tank armor: I doubt that lasers are there yet, especially single-pulse lasers. Traditional RPGs will most probably not be replaced by laser cannons in the next years.
Chinese developing fireworks:
Propellerhead: "Hey, if we put this powder in a tube and let it burn slowly the tube flies! And when we add some powder with metal dust at the front we get lights visible from afar!"
General: "Wow, that's pretty cool. I want a hundred of those by next week."
US Army developing fireworks:
Propellerhead: "It took us a team of dozens of specialists, but we developed a really heavy and maintenance-prone device that requires copious amounts of energy from a ridiculously expensive battery pack, that uses a laser pulse to create a ball of plasma which we then fire with a second laser pulse in order to create light and sound!"
General: "...Son, you've been playing way too much Unreal."
Propellerhead: "Well, we know that a grenade launcher and a flashbang would probably do the trick, but--"
General: "I don't care, I want a hundred of those by next week."
1.) As was already pointed out, a pulsed laser strong enough to kill is strong enough to ionize the air it travels through, generating a glowing line straight from the firer to the victim. Even seeing that line for a fraction of a second allows people to deduce the rough direction from which the shot came - that's what our brains are made for.
2.) I'm not entirely sure about this one, but I think that the ionized air gives off a fizzing sound, which means that yes, it becomes possible to identify a laser sniper by sound. Also, light bounces off the victim, resulting in at least a small flash as (s)he gets hit. No inexplicable deaths.
I think the advantages are more along the line of "we get long-range kills without having to calculate the effects of wind and gravity" than "our snipers become undetectable".
1.) Less scattering in space. Unless you're in some kind of nebula, the laser beam might not be visible enough.
2.) Before you can work on making undetectable weapons you should first make your ship undetectable. I'm talking about things like zero emission on all EM bands etc.
3.) What's the alternative? Ballistic weapons are slow and have recoil, missiles are slow and probably easy to detect (especially guided ones). Direct-energy weapons have the advantage of the enemy not being able to dodge the shot. Besides, missile bays, cannons etc. also need to be zero-emission or the enemy can see you firing.
I think that space combat and stealth don't go well together; not with currently feasible technology.
Okay, the browser chrome is nonstandard (but I actually prefer the look) and the prefs window has some nonstandard stuff, but it's not that much. However, I still use Firefox 1.5; maybe Firefox 2 is much different in that regard.
The EP is quite lobbyable. The software patent opponents successfully lobbied them to strike down the European Patent Directive - the last vote ended with ~95% votes against. It's hardly surprising that someone else talked them into voting for their law.
However, in contrast to the US the EU seems to be less about money and more about talking and (mis)information - the advantage is that non-corporations can play that game, too.
I don't know why they put "lamest" in the title - most of the "verdicts" are actually positive. For example, Darwin's Hexley is described as "weird but lovable".
Here's a hint: Use Mozilla's official OS X build and don't build your own X11-based version. Seriously, Firefox already uses Carbon, which means native widgets. Or maybe you mean the widgets shown in websites? Most websites don't conform to the Mac GUI at all anyway, so I don't really see those widgets particularly out of place - at least not more than the rest of the GUI.
Of course, if you find non-native GUI elements so insufferable you could always install Firefox 3 and be happy.
If that's a NASA video of Gliese 581 c's inhabitants we have two options: a) let Sony BMG make first contact and get next year's pop superstar(s) or b) nuke the whole planet from orbit.
Actually, there's a problem with option a) - the text is way too cerebral for today's mainstream pop audience.
Hmm, maybe we can combine a) and b). We should send all Sony and BMG execs to ensure their total annihi-- the best possible record deal.
But building that colony ship gives us insight in some things - for example how to build a really large starship. Just because the 8086 doesn't compare to the Athlon 64 doesn't mean it wasn't an important step on the way.
I noticed that as I expanded my palate, my tastes changed.
Of course they did. With an expanded palate your oral and nasal cavities are bound to be much smaller, which impacts your ability to properly smell and taste. You should really see a doctor about this.
No wonder. Lindt is premium stuff, at least as far as consumer-level chocolate is concerned. Even in Germany, where chocolate quality is pretty decent overall, Lindt is pretty much the king (if you want cheap but good stuff, though, I recommend Moser-Roth - it's an Aldi brand but extremely good for its price).
I currently favor Lindt's guave chocolate. Awesome stuff.
Wait a second... So you want AMD to miraculously make their CPUs faster at any cost (they recently tried to, with less than impressive results) and additionally raise the prices by an amount not prroportionate to the speed gains? AMD took and held its chunk of the home user market by being cheaper and/or better then Intel. Once they start having worse pricing (and also horrible efficiency) it's time to consider jumping ship.
Also, forgoing power (and thus heat) efficiency isn't going to make them any friends in datacenters, as has already been pointed out. The home user market is not much better. People don't want space heaters, they want chips that barely reach 70C at full load. Not only do they pose less of a cooling problem, they also draw lesss power, resulting in a lower electricity bill. Those are very good reasons against buying a "performance at any cost" design.
I remember the Thunderbird. You could fry eggs and bacon on it without the chip dying. That was cool. You could also melt the tubing of your water cooling system or completely scre up the processor socket with it. That was less cool.
Effectively, your campaign boils down to having AMD: It's more expensive as the next AMD marketing campaign. Sorry, but efficiency is as important in a computer as in a car - and to be honest, in Germany the stereotype dictates that BMWs are only driven by wealthy assholes (or assholes trying to look wealthy) and adolescents trying to look cooler than they are (their traditional vehicle being the 3 Series).
By the way, "performance at any cost" is awfully reminiscent of 3Dfx...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, we'll just blame it on the USA. They didn't sign the Kyoto protocol and now look at the mess we've got.
Actually, they probably all received more money from their respective labels than X-Com ever got from the nations of the world. At least X-Com didn't have to pay it back...
Come to think of it, Sony making a secret partnership with the aliens would explain a lot of things.
1.) True, but the light can still be detected (think CCD sensors). Not as easily, though, granted.
2.) Okay, that depends on the laser. The ones used will probably not glow (brightly), unless someone decides that green lasers are best suited for weapon use. OTOH, once you go into Really Big Gun area I think that athmospheric ionization is going to be severe. There have been theoretical weapon designs that let a laser ionize the path to the target and then send huge amounts of electricity through that path... Once you pump enough energy through a gas you end up with plasma.
3.) Well, my point was that lasers are audible. It doesn't matter how it sounds, you're still going to hear it.
4.) AFAIK multiple pulses are the preferred way of destroying things. A single lethal pulse needs to have some serious power behind it, as it does its damage mostly at the surface level (unlike a bullet, which travels through the body). Multiple smaller pulses might be more feasible in a portable weapon, as they allow the gun to "dig into" the victim.
Finally) That's insanely expensive. If you already have someone who can paint the target you can use a guided missile instead of a huge direct-energy gun that requires a cargo plane full of batteries (which, in turn, requires copious amounts of kerosene just to stay ready). Or you use a large caliber rifle; those go through body armor, too. If you're talking about tank armor: I doubt that lasers are there yet, especially single-pulse lasers. Traditional RPGs will most probably not be replaced by laser cannons in the next years.
True. The exact kind of noise generated depends on whether the rifle is set to kill or vaporize.
We've got the laser rifles, now all we need is a base, two Interceptors, a Skyranger and funding on par with that of a second-rate pop band.
The aliens will never stand a chance.
Maybe they can get some additional funding from Sony, then they get KILL, TOAST, ROAST, SUNBURN and BLU-RAY. LightScribe optional.
Chinese developing fireworks:
Propellerhead: "Hey, if we put this powder in a tube and let it burn slowly the tube flies! And when we add some powder with metal dust at the front we get lights visible from afar!"
General: "Wow, that's pretty cool. I want a hundred of those by next week."
US Army developing fireworks:
Propellerhead: "It took us a team of dozens of specialists, but we developed a really heavy and maintenance-prone device that requires copious amounts of energy from a ridiculously expensive battery pack, that uses a laser pulse to create a ball of plasma which we then fire with a second laser pulse in order to create light and sound!"
General: "...Son, you've been playing way too much Unreal."
Propellerhead: "Well, we know that a grenade launcher and a flashbang would probably do the trick, but--"
General: "I don't care, I want a hundred of those by next week."
1.) As was already pointed out, a pulsed laser strong enough to kill is strong enough to ionize the air it travels through, generating a glowing line straight from the firer to the victim. Even seeing that line for a fraction of a second allows people to deduce the rough direction from which the shot came - that's what our brains are made for.
2.) I'm not entirely sure about this one, but I think that the ionized air gives off a fizzing sound, which means that yes, it becomes possible to identify a laser sniper by sound. Also, light bounces off the victim, resulting in at least a small flash as (s)he gets hit. No inexplicable deaths.
I think the advantages are more along the line of "we get long-range kills without having to calculate the effects of wind and gravity" than "our snipers become undetectable".
1.) Less scattering in space. Unless you're in some kind of nebula, the laser beam might not be visible enough.
2.) Before you can work on making undetectable weapons you should first make your ship undetectable. I'm talking about things like zero emission on all EM bands etc.
3.) What's the alternative? Ballistic weapons are slow and have recoil, missiles are slow and probably easy to detect (especially guided ones). Direct-energy weapons have the advantage of the enemy not being able to dodge the shot. Besides, missile bays, cannons etc. also need to be zero-emission or the enemy can see you firing.
I think that space combat and stealth don't go well together; not with currently feasible technology.
Drag' em to court first, ask questions later. That's how it's done.
Okay, the browser chrome is nonstandard (but I actually prefer the look) and the prefs window has some nonstandard stuff, but it's not that much. However, I still use Firefox 1.5; maybe Firefox 2 is much different in that regard.
I meant "voting for their directive", of course.
The EP is quite lobbyable. The software patent opponents successfully lobbied them to strike down the European Patent Directive - the last vote ended with ~95% votes against. It's hardly surprising that someone else talked them into voting for their law.
However, in contrast to the US the EU seems to be less about money and more about talking and (mis)information - the advantage is that non-corporations can play that game, too.
I don't know why they put "lamest" in the title - most of the "verdicts" are actually positive. For example, Darwin's Hexley is described as "weird but lovable".
Might be the editor-on-crack syndrome.
Dear Colin Barret,
Plaese try fixing your own software first. Adium is even more of a resource pig than Firefox.
Here's a hint: Use Mozilla's official OS X build and don't build your own X11-based version. Seriously, Firefox already uses Carbon, which means native widgets. Or maybe you mean the widgets shown in websites? Most websites don't conform to the Mac GUI at all anyway, so I don't really see those widgets particularly out of place - at least not more than the rest of the GUI.
Of course, if you find non-native GUI elements so insufferable you could always install Firefox 3 and be happy.
You're confucing something there. Ballmer only does chairs. It's Mr. T who throws people helluva far.
Well, there's still the "the Bible doesn't tell us everything" variant. Nowhere does it say that God didn't have other projects...
Of course, I am an agnostic, so I don't have any good arguments anyway (if I had I wouldn't be one).
If that's a NASA video of Gliese 581 c's inhabitants we have two options: a) let Sony BMG make first contact and get next year's pop superstar(s) or b) nuke the whole planet from orbit.
Actually, there's a problem with option a) - the text is way too cerebral for today's mainstream pop audience.
Hmm, maybe we can combine a) and b). We should send all Sony and BMG execs to ensure their total annihi-- the best possible record deal.
But building that colony ship gives us insight in some things - for example how to build a really large starship. Just because the 8086 doesn't compare to the Athlon 64 doesn't mean it wasn't an important step on the way.
So until DX10 becomes necessary for a mainstream game, I don't see much interest in a majority of home users for Vista.
Until 2008, then?
I noticed that as I expanded my palate, my tastes changed.
Of course they did. With an expanded palate your oral and nasal cavities are bound to be much smaller, which impacts your ability to properly smell and taste. You should really see a doctor about this.
No wonder. Lindt is premium stuff, at least as far as consumer-level chocolate is concerned. Even in Germany, where chocolate quality is pretty decent overall, Lindt is pretty much the king (if you want cheap but good stuff, though, I recommend Moser-Roth - it's an Aldi brand but extremely good for its price).
I currently favor Lindt's guave chocolate. Awesome stuff.
Wait a second... So you want AMD to miraculously make their CPUs faster at any cost (they recently tried to, with less than impressive results) and additionally raise the prices by an amount not prroportionate to the speed gains? AMD took and held its chunk of the home user market by being cheaper and/or better then Intel. Once they start having worse pricing (and also horrible efficiency) it's time to consider jumping ship.
Also, forgoing power (and thus heat) efficiency isn't going to make them any friends in datacenters, as has already been pointed out. The home user market is not much better. People don't want space heaters, they want chips that barely reach 70C at full load. Not only do they pose less of a cooling problem, they also draw lesss power, resulting in a lower electricity bill. Those are very good reasons against buying a "performance at any cost" design.
I remember the Thunderbird. You could fry eggs and bacon on it without the chip dying. That was cool. You could also melt the tubing of your water cooling system or completely scre up the processor socket with it. That was less cool.
Effectively, your campaign boils down to having AMD: It's more expensive as the next AMD marketing campaign. Sorry, but efficiency is as important in a computer as in a car - and to be honest, in Germany the stereotype dictates that BMWs are only driven by wealthy assholes (or assholes trying to look wealthy) and adolescents trying to look cooler than they are (their traditional vehicle being the 3 Series).
By the way, "performance at any cost" is awfully reminiscent of 3Dfx...
For some reason "won't play any HD content" doesn't sound like a selling argument... And that's what J. Prospective Buyer is going to see.