Tipping is what needs to die. I'm sorry, but $10/hr for transporting a single piece of paper 100ft in one direction and a couple of plates in the other direction is waaay over paid. When we talk about numbers in the range of $30/hr, it is down right vulgar. Many skilled laborers and artisans that don't make that kind of money; and when they can, often not regularly. Add in the fact that tipping is based on a percent, it is beyond idiotic! I'm sorry, but a 3lbs plate at $5.00 does not require more skill or time than a 3lbs plate at $50.00 to carry to my table. Even worse, are people that consider you cheap if you tip less than 20%. At least it makes it easy to identify the masses that need to be removed from the gene pool as critical thinking base intelligence are completely absent.
Let's face it, minimum wage for waiters and waitresses is more than ample for the vast majority in that line of work.
And before anyone starts taking cheap shots at me, I've waited and bussed tables and also worked as a dish washer in back. I do tip, typically 10%. When service is extra ordinary, I tip 20%. Needless say, I rarely tip 20%. On the very rare occasion I find a 20% is deserved, I point it out to the manager so they can be compensated by the appropriate source.
Try some of the GM'ed games of Neverwinter Nights (1 or 2).....it will add a different flavor. All of the fun and social interaction of the pen and paper with the nice graphics. Of course, it will depend on how good of a GM you actually hook up with (but the same was true of pen and paper).
I completely agree with you on NWN1. As for NWN2, most everyone considers multiplayer to be a complete disaster. Crashes and playability bugs are common. Hopefully the next patch will drastically improve the state of multiplayer usability. Then again, everyone has been saying, hoping, and praying those exact words for over a year now.
They now have an expansion pack out for NWN2 yet multiplayer is still just a pipe dream.
My understanding is the gas is kept at pressure to allow it to be reabsorbed by surrounding material. Thus the intension is for it to not only be kept underground, but for it be naturally reabsorbed into the types of material which naturally stores CO2.
The original studies on sacrin were sponcered by sugar growers who then lobbied, using their own "independent" study to prove the dangers to humans. I've certainly slept since I last read the study but IIRC, they fed something like 30x a rodent's body weight of sacrin every 30-days and documented how it caused cancer after many months. Once the FDA labels a product as a health risk, it requires an act of God to get the label removed.
I'm likely not correctly remembering the numbers but you get the idea. If you are 30x your body weight of almost any food additive, it's likely to have serious health implications. Studies done years later not only invalidate the original research but indicate Sacrin is actually one of the safer food additives.
To be clear, I am not advocate one start shooting up sacrin. I am saying the cause of the FDA labeling is well understood and well documented to not be reasonable and well outside of reasonable testing protocols. Of course, one should also seek to limit the numbers of additives in their diet. And to be clear, all artificial sweeteners can have negative effects on the body.
Also, super sweet sweeteners are also believed to be the cause of higher sugar consumption. After a while, your body gets used to certain levels of sweetness and what would once blow the top of your head off as super sweet, is later consumed as "normal". This directly drives higher sugar consumption to satisfy one's sweet tooth. Some studies also suggest this is the cause of lower fruit consumption as the natural sugars no longer taste very sweet, causing fruits to taste bland. These studies also strongly recommend that all dieters remove *all* artificial sweeteners from their diets, **especially** diet colas and sodas from their diet. Those that do, find their sugar cravings are drastically reduced and when they do break from their diet, the "binge effect" is also drastically reduced.
Sidenote: I also stopped consuming sugar and many products which sugarize in the mouth (many wheat products, some corn products, etc). This may have something to do with having a healthier mouth!
Given that sugar can be directly associated with just about every common disease from which man suffers, lowering your sugar intact will absolutely result in a healthier body and mouth. Most nutritional research indicates low caloric diets result in both healthy bodies and younger looking skin and hair, and a longer, healthy lifespan to boot. Low caloric diets are almost impossible with highly processed, sugary foods.
In nations where high levels or processed sugars have been introduced to the indigenous populations, disease rates rapidly rise and lifespans rapidly shrink; with poor oral health following.
I have absolutely no idea if fluoride harms the body. But without a doubt, reducing ones sugar intact, doubly so for processed sugars, will improve ones overall health.
Ironically, a popular sugar substitute which is labeled as a significant health risk to humans, is drastically safer and extremely well documented to be so, safer to humans than highly processed beat and cane sugars.
To be clear, I'm not declaring any company is evil or that sugar is the work of the devil. I am saying that sugar is extremely well documented to be directly associated with just about every common disease which afflicts mankind. Having said all that, I enjoy a good dessert as much as the next guy.
When I first heard about this only one thing popped into my head. I'm sure some will call me paranoid but those that do sound like idiots given the US's recurring history. This outage sounds exactly like a US military/CIA ploy to place snooping equipment inline. The US has a long history of doing exactly this, especially with the Russians. Sure, I may be wrong but once you consider those cables are well marked, the chances of them accidentally becoming broken are astronomically unlikely. The only likely scenario is one driven by the US' desire to spy.
Sure I could be wrong but it's far more likely I'm right.
I do not believe the intent is to "cut off" but that spy with a cover story.
No problem. Getting a clear memory picture on Windows is horrible and is a huge pain in the ass. Windows does an excellent job of blending completely unrelated memory operations and reporting them together. This in turn means you often have to grab n-other memory related operations for the same period and subtract out the n-items. What is left is a best guess number which will be in the ball park.
Anyone who says a single measurement is meaningful, as it relates to Window's reporting of memory use, aside from the aggregate totals, is not worth giving the time of day. And even the aggregates often come with a list of caveats the length of your arm. Windows gets even more convoluted because of how they track and report paging activity,shared memory, shared library loading, and resource resolution, which in turn is all part of memory management. It's a mess.
The numbers, as reported, is basically meaningless.
Here's an example. Let's say on Vista, they allocate larger chunks of memory to avoid fragmentation issues. Vista now reports larger memory use. The actual memory allocated and committed may be the same. Then again, they may not. As memory management strategies may have changed to combat buffer overflows, additional allocations may have also occurred.
Long story short, this is performing an apples and oranges comparison while reporting that oranges are not red and therefore we have a problem.
but virtual space is the actual memory usage of an application.
That's a common misconception is flat wrong.
For example, write a program and have it call malloc on 2GB. Write to only 1/2MB. You have virtually allocated 2GB but are only using 1/2MB. Now, write a second program and have it malloc on 2GB, but this time only write to 1/4MB. Both have the same virtual space and even the same total virtual addressable space. You can even run both at the same time as total system demand is only 3/4MB. The only difference between the two is on physically uses 1/2MB of RAM and the other uses 1/4MB of RAM despite the fact that you have requested the system to provide 2GB.
I would suspect that the Naval interest in rail-gun technology is probably aimed at point-defense (i.e: shooting down incoming anti-ship missiles) more then anything else.
The navy is well established on record at looking to use rail-guns to replace cannons. Rail guns provide much higher velocity (quicker to target) with corresponding higher kinetic energies and penetration capabilities. Round for round, rail rounds are much smaller. Of course, right now, the required energy systems more shift the round size advantage to the negative, but they hope to one day have that addressed as well.
Think about it, firing a round at say twice the range and half the travel time, which greater accuracy is certainly on every military man's wish list. And when you have a round which travels at speeds in excess of mach 5, for many categories of targets, an explosive round isn't even required.
Use of virtual space is almost meaningless. It's one thing if they are talking about committed memory but I didn't see anything (I quickly read) which implied it was all committed. Unless I missed it, talking about the amount of non-committed, virtual application memory, is like two would-be ranchers discussing how big their spreads will one day be, while they both only own an apartment.
Shesh. Go back and read. Your comprehension is horrible. You're the only one that complained. Period. And it is still obvious you have no idea what entitlement means.
My point, which has been hammered home many times already, seems to completely go over your head. For the last time, the entire point of this thread is that paying for something for which you receive does not constitute "free". If I pay for x and receive x, x is not free. Contracts have nothing to do with anything...and once again we have yet another unrelated oddity at the table.
Why are so many of you "hardcore" Slashdotters do defensive and offensive?
Because idiots who attack people, such as you, who can't even follow the most basic of threads, annoy people and distract for the subject matter.
At this point it is completely obvious you're either a troll or a complete idiot...so there is no point in continuing.
That is frankly, one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on/. in a long while, assuming you are not trolling. I am assuming you are trolling, but I'll bite.
Go immediately look up what entitlement means. You obviously don't know. When you pay for a service or product and expect what you paid for in exchange, by law, means you are "entitled." This does not mean you are unjustly entitled without paying for the service. Those are two completely different things. There is a huge difference. And frankly, I can't help but look at you like an alien from Mars for failing to see the obvious.
If you think that $15 a month is too much, then you're a fool to pay it. Blizzard doesn't owe you anything more than they agreed to.
And as you are the only one making this argument, you appear to be the only fool here.
At no point in time did I argue Blizzard can not create teared services. Of course they can. But since you're the only one even remotely approaching it, it's completely off topic. You're reaching from far left field. Once you pay for a service or good, you are entitled to receive it. The price is not material to the discussion at hand. The price could be $1,000,000 per account, it still has zero to do with the topic at hand.
If I were to reactivate my account, I would get access to all the new content and it didn't cost me a dime. So to me, it would be totally free content.
That still doesn't make it free and is completely illogical. That's like saying every ride at Six Flags, which was built after the park opened fifty years (or however many years) ago is free. They are not free because you PAID for the ride(s) when you entered the park.
New content does not mean free content. You paid for it. As soon as you resume your service subscription, you PAID for both the original and new content.
I understand the source of their ignorance. It still doesn't make it free. A poor value proposition from a competitor does not make the value difference free. It just makes the others poor consumers.
and you're still paying a monthly fee even if they don't provide content updates.
Right, but not getting new content simply makes it a poor value proposition. Getting new content means higher customer retention and better value for the customer. This is good for both you and Blizzard. It does not make it free, which was my point.
Blizzard is constantly rolling out new content for free
I'm so tired of people making such statements. You get ZERO new content for FREE. You pay a monthly subscription which funds new development, among other things. You PAID for the new content. It is not free!
The US understood (like the Russians) that sometimes you don't need the top of the line tech to win ( we learned that on the other side in Vietnam ).
You're reading too much into my statement I think. While it's true the US understood top class tech was not required (e.g. POS and reliable Sherman tanks), at entry, the US had bottom rung tech and that's why it took years after our entry to make any difference other than the status quo.
You also say, "While the folks of Europe were focused on Jets, missiles, and other factors", it's really not fair in the least. Most of the world considered the A-bomb to be the longest stretch of any of these technologies. The problem Germany had was lack of resources to sustain its war and its aggressive and broad R&D, which was more encompassing than any other country.
Yet beat Japan singlehandedly
Which is thanks to coder breakers and a significant opps by the Japanese at the Battle of Midway. Not to mention dumb luck in timing on our part (at Pearl Harbor) and a fatal flaw that they failed to attack the full fields during their Pearl Harbor attack. And the reason we beat the Japanese and Germans in air to air? Aviation tech (our airplanes were bigger and better armored) on par by mid war, better fuel management (lean of peak (LOP) was developed here - saves fuel and/or provided better operating range), and a societal difference in the believe that pilots are important rather than disposable; at least in the case of the Japanese. To boot, we continually advanced aviation technology while the Japanese maintained the status quo. The Germans were attempting stellar leaps in aviation technology; which most believe would had won them the war if they had not been wasting resources on so many other fronts...combined with leadership which wasn't insane.
Long story, it sounds like you're trying to boost the US' historical position more than it deserves. Basically you can thank an insane Hitler for the US victory over Japan.
"They were simply unfortunate enough to be next to the main aggressor in that conflict." No they were simply stupid enough to put most of their Army in bunkers along a very small border in a time when their opponent had Tanks and planes.. A mobile army vs a stationary army... Hmmmm.
This can't be stressed enough. The French, like most armies of the period, were very slow to change doctrine. For the French, it meant they refused to acknowledge their entire defense plan was worthless given the technology of the time (to be repeated in Africa by both sides). For America, this meant they refused to acknowledge their battleship-centric navy was worthless given the technology of the time. A fact which would not be lost to the Japanese.
Heck, of the two, the American's have far more to be ashamed of then the French, given the Period. Hmmm...US decides to pass on developing jets and rockets...that went to the Germans and Brits using an American's test results and writings (Goddard's) as their start. The US decides to pass on empowering air craft carriers despite their own results clearly showing the age of the battleship had passed. The elected to continue building battleships and destroyers. The Japanese embraced carriers after seeing our own results and gave the American's Pearl Harbor; proving how stupid the Americans were.
I mean come on...France surrendered because they had the shit kicked out of them in a blink of the eye while fighting with barely post-WWI technology against an entirely new type of military doctrine (Blitzkrieg) and technologically advanced weapons; think US vs Iraq. The US had the same post-WWI tech base. Oddly enough, the US military had their own research into such combined forces doctrine and decided to pass, citing it was too unconventional and too unproven and they'd waste no funds on such folly. So it was never developed by the US. The Germans kindly proved to the world how stupid they were.
Long story short, in a comparison of countries given the period in time, the US is a laughable, shit-bag of a country which gave away or simply passed on every technologically significant advancement of the time to have it shoved up their ass during WWII.
And before anyone bashes me, I'm a proud American. Being proud does not mean I'm looking to rewrite history or ignore important facts.
And let's not forget the French worked their asses off providing intelligence, spy networks, smuggling downed air crews out, and opening their homes and women to American's and Brits alike. It's easy to sit on a high horse, but remember a lot of our fathers, grand fathers, and great grandfathers would not have made it if it were not for the French during WWII. Some of the most valuable spies during WWII were French.
Having said all that, the French do screw a lot of things up these days and some of their politics is just down right scary, but poking them with the 'ol surrender cliche is to publicly admit one is stupid.
Not sure if you've ever actually driven a motorcycle, after reading your arguments.
I drove a motorcycle for years and completed several driver safety courses. Not to mention I've taken pointers from several ameature racers. The information I spouted is well accepted as fact. Frankly, I can't imagine why you'd have issue with it as it's also common sense if you stop to think about it. If these defacto facts seem foreign to you, it suggests you need to immediately review your riding skills and prowess on a bike.
Going from coasting to full throttle in a motorcycle (or car with a high power to weight ratio) might get you one vehicle length further along than you would have been after 3/4 of a second. In avoidance terms, your brakes will always outperform your engine, so to displace your future position the most, use the brakes.
It's obvious either you don't ride on US roads or ride strictly in the country. Or perhaps you're an off-road rider.
Motorcycles are less maneuverable in terms of the abiity to make sudden directional changes than cars. Jerk the steering wheel in a car, and it immediately responds by going in another direction. Jerk the handlebars of a bike and you'll fall off, because *you must lean before you turn*.
Wow. It's obvious you have no idea how to control a motorcycle. At speed, you lean a bike by steering opposite direction of turn, not the other way around. Once into the lean you can then shift weight to deepen; but that's rarely practical on non-track environments unless you like riding your bike on its side. People who try to steer by forcing it into a lean should immediately seek additional training.
In general, any four wheeled vehicle will beat a two wheeled vehicle in terms of sudden maneuvering response,
This is why they make rider safety courses. That statement is only true for riders that have no riding skill and no clue as how to properly execute maneuvers. Bikes are highly maneuverable with some surface limitations, often requiring special braking consideration. As a rule of thumb, bikes out maneuver cars, which is one of a bike's safety features when equipped with a properly trained rider. You seriously think cars don't plow?
If you are in fact a rider, I sincerely hope you go enroll in a local rider safety course. I think you'll find it to be a real eye opener. Basically everything you touted is a major red flag for your own safety.
And before everyone freaks out about the safety, I figure it's safer than a motorcycle.
I doubt it. The primary safety factors built into motorcycles is their power to weight ratio, maneuverability, and braking ability. Their power allow them to get out of tight spots. Their maneuverability allow them to avoid tight spots in the first place; often complimented by their power. And their braking further compliments all the above. The only down side to breaking is the general population prevents motorcycles from fully utilizing their braking capacity as cars behind them will drive right over them.
Now then, put all that into perspective with a "Smart Car". You'll find the car has none of that, save only for perhaps braking, which as you can read above is already limited because of the idiots on the roads which refuse to provide you ample braking distance.
The biggest problem with motorcycle safety is first and foremost the rider. The second problem is the other drivers are not taught how to deal with motorcycles on the road. The vehicle it self is actually pretty safe. The weakest link is often the rider and the other drivers because they fail to properly estimate distance and speed, not to mention compromise safety to tail gating.
Only if they said it was a double blind study. Otherwise, the administrator likely knew which were placebo patients. A placebo by it self does not imply ignorance of all parties involved.
The question is who do you replace those executives with and how much better would their decisions be?
Contrary to popular myth, a higher education does not assert one can make superior decisions. By in large our education system has become nothing more than a good 'ol boy network. In fact, the last several large companies I've worked for, could easily have been replaced with high school drop outs and been as successful as making good decisions.
Generally big business works like this. You used to work for Joe. You brown nosed Joe a lot. You finally get a new position at a new company because the person hiring you went to school with Joe. Joe calls you to find out how you two can now do business together. You take turns propping each other up with sales that only makes sense, short term, on paper. In the mean time, you know have created your own apprentice and the first part is now primed to repeat. Now, since your short term deals look good on paper, you are now given a large raise and your parachute is bolstered. In a couple of years down the road, the short term stupidity catches up with you and you are asked to quietly leave. You now move on to another company where stupidly is rewarded. Repeat.
The vast majority of big business has nothing to do with sound decision making. American Airlines is the poster boy which usurped the crown from Enron and its kin.
So yes, superior decision making can EASILY be found by the common man on the street...but business isn't about superior decision making...it's about who you know...who you went to school with...and how readily you can lie to maintain your position to build your parachute up while floating to your next parachute.
Business work differently in other 1st world countries, but in the US, idiots with huge egos a well connected friends, by in large, run US corporations. Obviously there are exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
and this practice needs to die.
Tipping is what needs to die. I'm sorry, but $10/hr for transporting a single piece of paper 100ft in one direction and a couple of plates in the other direction is waaay over paid. When we talk about numbers in the range of $30/hr, it is down right vulgar. Many skilled laborers and artisans that don't make that kind of money; and when they can, often not regularly. Add in the fact that tipping is based on a percent, it is beyond idiotic! I'm sorry, but a 3lbs plate at $5.00 does not require more skill or time than a 3lbs plate at $50.00 to carry to my table. Even worse, are people that consider you cheap if you tip less than 20%. At least it makes it easy to identify the masses that need to be removed from the gene pool as critical thinking base intelligence are completely absent.
Let's face it, minimum wage for waiters and waitresses is more than ample for the vast majority in that line of work.
And before anyone starts taking cheap shots at me, I've waited and bussed tables and also worked as a dish washer in back. I do tip, typically 10%. When service is extra ordinary, I tip 20%. Needless say, I rarely tip 20%. On the very rare occasion I find a 20% is deserved, I point it out to the manager so they can be compensated by the appropriate source.
In other words, security is a process. Security is not strictly a hardware and software solution.
Try some of the GM'ed games of Neverwinter Nights (1 or 2).....it will add a different flavor. All of the fun and social interaction of the pen and paper with the nice graphics. Of course, it will depend on how good of a GM you actually hook up with (but the same was true of pen and paper).
I completely agree with you on NWN1. As for NWN2, most everyone considers multiplayer to be a complete disaster. Crashes and playability bugs are common. Hopefully the next patch will drastically improve the state of multiplayer usability. Then again, everyone has been saying, hoping, and praying those exact words for over a year now.
They now have an expansion pack out for NWN2 yet multiplayer is still just a pipe dream.
My understanding is the gas is kept at pressure to allow it to be reabsorbed by surrounding material. Thus the intension is for it to not only be kept underground, but for it be naturally reabsorbed into the types of material which naturally stores CO2.
The original studies on sacrin were sponcered by sugar growers who then lobbied, using their own "independent" study to prove the dangers to humans. I've certainly slept since I last read the study but IIRC, they fed something like 30x a rodent's body weight of sacrin every 30-days and documented how it caused cancer after many months. Once the FDA labels a product as a health risk, it requires an act of God to get the label removed.
I'm likely not correctly remembering the numbers but you get the idea. If you are 30x your body weight of almost any food additive, it's likely to have serious health implications. Studies done years later not only invalidate the original research but indicate Sacrin is actually one of the safer food additives.
To be clear, I am not advocate one start shooting up sacrin. I am saying the cause of the FDA labeling is well understood and well documented to not be reasonable and well outside of reasonable testing protocols. Of course, one should also seek to limit the numbers of additives in their diet. And to be clear, all artificial sweeteners can have negative effects on the body.
Also, super sweet sweeteners are also believed to be the cause of higher sugar consumption. After a while, your body gets used to certain levels of sweetness and what would once blow the top of your head off as super sweet, is later consumed as "normal". This directly drives higher sugar consumption to satisfy one's sweet tooth. Some studies also suggest this is the cause of lower fruit consumption as the natural sugars no longer taste very sweet, causing fruits to taste bland. These studies also strongly recommend that all dieters remove *all* artificial sweeteners from their diets, **especially** diet colas and sodas from their diet. Those that do, find their sugar cravings are drastically reduced and when they do break from their diet, the "binge effect" is also drastically reduced.
Sidenote: I also stopped consuming sugar and many products which sugarize in the mouth (many wheat products, some corn products, etc). This may have something to do with having a healthier mouth!
Given that sugar can be directly associated with just about every common disease from which man suffers, lowering your sugar intact will absolutely result in a healthier body and mouth. Most nutritional research indicates low caloric diets result in both healthy bodies and younger looking skin and hair, and a longer, healthy lifespan to boot. Low caloric diets are almost impossible with highly processed, sugary foods.
In nations where high levels or processed sugars have been introduced to the indigenous populations, disease rates rapidly rise and lifespans rapidly shrink; with poor oral health following.
I have absolutely no idea if fluoride harms the body. But without a doubt, reducing ones sugar intact, doubly so for processed sugars, will improve ones overall health.
Ironically, a popular sugar substitute which is labeled as a significant health risk to humans, is drastically safer and extremely well documented to be so, safer to humans than highly processed beat and cane sugars.
To be clear, I'm not declaring any company is evil or that sugar is the work of the devil. I am saying that sugar is extremely well documented to be directly associated with just about every common disease which afflicts mankind. Having said all that, I enjoy a good dessert as much as the next guy.
When I first heard about this only one thing popped into my head. I'm sure some will call me paranoid but those that do sound like idiots given the US's recurring history. This outage sounds exactly like a US military/CIA ploy to place snooping equipment inline. The US has a long history of doing exactly this, especially with the Russians. Sure, I may be wrong but once you consider those cables are well marked, the chances of them accidentally becoming broken are astronomically unlikely. The only likely scenario is one driven by the US' desire to spy.
Sure I could be wrong but it's far more likely I'm right.
I do not believe the intent is to "cut off" but that spy with a cover story.
No problem. Getting a clear memory picture on Windows is horrible and is a huge pain in the ass. Windows does an excellent job of blending completely unrelated memory operations and reporting them together. This in turn means you often have to grab n-other memory related operations for the same period and subtract out the n-items. What is left is a best guess number which will be in the ball park.
Anyone who says a single measurement is meaningful, as it relates to Window's reporting of memory use, aside from the aggregate totals, is not worth giving the time of day. And even the aggregates often come with a list of caveats the length of your arm. Windows gets even more convoluted because of how they track and report paging activity,shared memory, shared library loading, and resource resolution, which in turn is all part of memory management. It's a mess.
The numbers, as reported, is basically meaningless.
Here's an example. Let's say on Vista, they allocate larger chunks of memory to avoid fragmentation issues. Vista now reports larger memory use. The actual memory allocated and committed may be the same. Then again, they may not. As memory management strategies may have changed to combat buffer overflows, additional allocations may have also occurred.
Long story short, this is performing an apples and oranges comparison while reporting that oranges are not red and therefore we have a problem.
but virtual space is the actual memory usage of an application.
That's a common misconception is flat wrong.
For example, write a program and have it call malloc on 2GB. Write to only 1/2MB. You have virtually allocated 2GB but are only using 1/2MB. Now, write a second program and have it malloc on 2GB, but this time only write to 1/4MB. Both have the same virtual space and even the same total virtual addressable space. You can even run both at the same time as total system demand is only 3/4MB. The only difference between the two is on physically uses 1/2MB of RAM and the other uses 1/4MB of RAM despite the fact that you have requested the system to provide 2GB.
I would suspect that the Naval interest in rail-gun technology is probably aimed at point-defense (i.e: shooting down incoming anti-ship missiles) more then anything else.
The navy is well established on record at looking to use rail-guns to replace cannons. Rail guns provide much higher velocity (quicker to target) with corresponding higher kinetic energies and penetration capabilities. Round for round, rail rounds are much smaller. Of course, right now, the required energy systems more shift the round size advantage to the negative, but they hope to one day have that addressed as well.
Think about it, firing a round at say twice the range and half the travel time, which greater accuracy is certainly on every military man's wish list. And when you have a round which travels at speeds in excess of mach 5, for many categories of targets, an explosive round isn't even required.
Use of virtual space is almost meaningless. It's one thing if they are talking about committed memory but I didn't see anything (I quickly read) which implied it was all committed. Unless I missed it, talking about the amount of non-committed, virtual application memory, is like two would-be ranchers discussing how big their spreads will one day be, while they both only own an apartment.
Shesh. Go back and read. Your comprehension is horrible. You're the only one that complained. Period. And it is still obvious you have no idea what entitlement means.
My point, which has been hammered home many times already, seems to completely go over your head. For the last time, the entire point of this thread is that paying for something for which you receive does not constitute "free". If I pay for x and receive x, x is not free. Contracts have nothing to do with anything...and once again we have yet another unrelated oddity at the table.
Why are so many of you "hardcore" Slashdotters do defensive and offensive?
Because idiots who attack people, such as you, who can't even follow the most basic of threads, annoy people and distract for the subject matter.
At this point it is completely obvious you're either a troll or a complete idiot...so there is no point in continuing.
Your premise is faulty and reeks of entitlement.
/. in a long while, assuming you are not trolling. I am assuming you are trolling, but I'll bite.
That is frankly, one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on
Go immediately look up what entitlement means. You obviously don't know. When you pay for a service or product and expect what you paid for in exchange, by law, means you are "entitled." This does not mean you are unjustly entitled without paying for the service. Those are two completely different things. There is a huge difference. And frankly, I can't help but look at you like an alien from Mars for failing to see the obvious.
If you think that $15 a month is too much, then you're a fool to pay it. Blizzard doesn't owe you anything more than they agreed to.
And as you are the only one making this argument, you appear to be the only fool here.
At no point in time did I argue Blizzard can not create teared services. Of course they can. But since you're the only one even remotely approaching it, it's completely off topic. You're reaching from far left field. Once you pay for a service or good, you are entitled to receive it. The price is not material to the discussion at hand. The price could be $1,000,000 per account, it still has zero to do with the topic at hand.
If I were to reactivate my account, I would get access to all the new content and it didn't cost me a dime. So to me, it would be totally free content.
That still doesn't make it free and is completely illogical. That's like saying every ride at Six Flags, which was built after the park opened fifty years (or however many years) ago is free. They are not free because you PAID for the ride(s) when you entered the park.
New content does not mean free content. You paid for it. As soon as you resume your service subscription, you PAID for both the original and new content.
I understand the source of their ignorance. It still doesn't make it free. A poor value proposition from a competitor does not make the value difference free. It just makes the others poor consumers.
They could just release expansion packs at retail if they cared to.
Which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Providing greater value does not mean it is free.
and you're still paying a monthly fee even if they don't provide content updates.
Right, but not getting new content simply makes it a poor value proposition. Getting new content means higher customer retention and better value for the customer. This is good for both you and Blizzard. It does not make it free, which was my point.
Blizzard is constantly rolling out new content for free
I'm so tired of people making such statements. You get ZERO new content for FREE. You pay a monthly subscription which funds new development, among other things. You PAID for the new content. It is not free!
The US understood (like the Russians) that sometimes you don't need the top of the line tech to win ( we learned that on the other side in Vietnam ).
You're reading too much into my statement I think. While it's true the US understood top class tech was not required (e.g. POS and reliable Sherman tanks), at entry, the US had bottom rung tech and that's why it took years after our entry to make any difference other than the status quo.
You also say, "While the folks of Europe were focused on Jets, missiles, and other factors", it's really not fair in the least. Most of the world considered the A-bomb to be the longest stretch of any of these technologies. The problem Germany had was lack of resources to sustain its war and its aggressive and broad R&D, which was more encompassing than any other country.
Yet beat Japan singlehandedly
Which is thanks to coder breakers and a significant opps by the Japanese at the Battle of Midway. Not to mention dumb luck in timing on our part (at Pearl Harbor) and a fatal flaw that they failed to attack the full fields during their Pearl Harbor attack. And the reason we beat the Japanese and Germans in air to air? Aviation tech (our airplanes were bigger and better armored) on par by mid war, better fuel management (lean of peak (LOP) was developed here - saves fuel and/or provided better operating range), and a societal difference in the believe that pilots are important rather than disposable; at least in the case of the Japanese. To boot, we continually advanced aviation technology while the Japanese maintained the status quo. The Germans were attempting stellar leaps in aviation technology; which most believe would had won them the war if they had not been wasting resources on so many other fronts...combined with leadership which wasn't insane.
Long story, it sounds like you're trying to boost the US' historical position more than it deserves. Basically you can thank an insane Hitler for the US victory over Japan.
"They were simply unfortunate enough to be next to the main aggressor in that conflict." No they were simply stupid enough to put most of their Army in bunkers along a very small border in a time when their opponent had Tanks and planes.. A mobile army vs a stationary army... Hmmmm.
This can't be stressed enough. The French, like most armies of the period, were very slow to change doctrine. For the French, it meant they refused to acknowledge their entire defense plan was worthless given the technology of the time (to be repeated in Africa by both sides). For America, this meant they refused to acknowledge their battleship-centric navy was worthless given the technology of the time. A fact which would not be lost to the Japanese.
Heck, of the two, the American's have far more to be ashamed of then the French, given the Period. Hmmm...US decides to pass on developing jets and rockets...that went to the Germans and Brits using an American's test results and writings (Goddard's) as their start. The US decides to pass on empowering air craft carriers despite their own results clearly showing the age of the battleship had passed. The elected to continue building battleships and destroyers. The Japanese embraced carriers after seeing our own results and gave the American's Pearl Harbor; proving how stupid the Americans were.
I mean come on...France surrendered because they had the shit kicked out of them in a blink of the eye while fighting with barely post-WWI technology against an entirely new type of military doctrine (Blitzkrieg) and technologically advanced weapons; think US vs Iraq. The US had the same post-WWI tech base. Oddly enough, the US military had their own research into such combined forces doctrine and decided to pass, citing it was too unconventional and too unproven and they'd waste no funds on such folly. So it was never developed by the US. The Germans kindly proved to the world how stupid they were.
Long story short, in a comparison of countries given the period in time, the US is a laughable, shit-bag of a country which gave away or simply passed on every technologically significant advancement of the time to have it shoved up their ass during WWII.
And before anyone bashes me, I'm a proud American. Being proud does not mean I'm looking to rewrite history or ignore important facts.
And let's not forget the French worked their asses off providing intelligence, spy networks, smuggling downed air crews out, and opening their homes and women to American's and Brits alike. It's easy to sit on a high horse, but remember a lot of our fathers, grand fathers, and great grandfathers would not have made it if it were not for the French during WWII. Some of the most valuable spies during WWII were French.
Having said all that, the French do screw a lot of things up these days and some of their politics is just down right scary, but poking them with the 'ol surrender cliche is to publicly admit one is stupid.
I have to second source navigator. It's crossplatform and supports multiple languages.
Not sure if you've ever actually driven a motorcycle, after reading your arguments.
I drove a motorcycle for years and completed several driver safety courses. Not to mention I've taken pointers from several ameature racers. The information I spouted is well accepted as fact. Frankly, I can't imagine why you'd have issue with it as it's also common sense if you stop to think about it. If these defacto facts seem foreign to you, it suggests you need to immediately review your riding skills and prowess on a bike.
Going from coasting to full throttle in a motorcycle (or car with a high power to weight ratio) might get you one vehicle length further along than you would have been after 3/4 of a second. In avoidance terms, your brakes will always outperform your engine, so to displace your future position the most, use the brakes.
It's obvious either you don't ride on US roads or ride strictly in the country. Or perhaps you're an off-road rider.
Motorcycles are less maneuverable in terms of the abiity to make sudden directional changes than cars. Jerk the steering wheel in a car, and it immediately responds by going in another direction. Jerk the handlebars of a bike and you'll fall off, because *you must lean before you turn*.
Wow. It's obvious you have no idea how to control a motorcycle. At speed, you lean a bike by steering opposite direction of turn, not the other way around. Once into the lean you can then shift weight to deepen; but that's rarely practical on non-track environments unless you like riding your bike on its side. People who try to steer by forcing it into a lean should immediately seek additional training.
In general, any four wheeled vehicle will beat a two wheeled vehicle in terms of sudden maneuvering response,
This is why they make rider safety courses. That statement is only true for riders that have no riding skill and no clue as how to properly execute maneuvers. Bikes are highly maneuverable with some surface limitations, often requiring special braking consideration. As a rule of thumb, bikes out maneuver cars, which is one of a bike's safety features when equipped with a properly trained rider. You seriously think cars don't plow?
If you are in fact a rider, I sincerely hope you go enroll in a local rider safety course. I think you'll find it to be a real eye opener. Basically everything you touted is a major red flag for your own safety.
And before everyone freaks out about the safety, I figure it's safer than a motorcycle.
I doubt it. The primary safety factors built into motorcycles is their power to weight ratio, maneuverability, and braking ability. Their power allow them to get out of tight spots. Their maneuverability allow them to avoid tight spots in the first place; often complimented by their power. And their braking further compliments all the above. The only down side to breaking is the general population prevents motorcycles from fully utilizing their braking capacity as cars behind them will drive right over them.
Now then, put all that into perspective with a "Smart Car". You'll find the car has none of that, save only for perhaps braking, which as you can read above is already limited because of the idiots on the roads which refuse to provide you ample braking distance.
The biggest problem with motorcycle safety is first and foremost the rider. The second problem is the other drivers are not taught how to deal with motorcycles on the road. The vehicle it self is actually pretty safe. The weakest link is often the rider and the other drivers because they fail to properly estimate distance and speed, not to mention compromise safety to tail gating.
nor the test administrator can tell
Only if they said it was a double blind study. Otherwise, the administrator likely knew which were placebo patients. A placebo by it self does not imply ignorance of all parties involved.
The question is who do you replace those executives with and how much better would their decisions be?
Contrary to popular myth, a higher education does not assert one can make superior decisions. By in large our education system has become nothing more than a good 'ol boy network. In fact, the last several large companies I've worked for, could easily have been replaced with high school drop outs and been as successful as making good decisions.
Generally big business works like this. You used to work for Joe. You brown nosed Joe a lot. You finally get a new position at a new company because the person hiring you went to school with Joe. Joe calls you to find out how you two can now do business together. You take turns propping each other up with sales that only makes sense, short term, on paper. In the mean time, you know have created your own apprentice and the first part is now primed to repeat. Now, since your short term deals look good on paper, you are now given a large raise and your parachute is bolstered. In a couple of years down the road, the short term stupidity catches up with you and you are asked to quietly leave. You now move on to another company where stupidly is rewarded. Repeat.
The vast majority of big business has nothing to do with sound decision making. American Airlines is the poster boy which usurped the crown from Enron and its kin.
So yes, superior decision making can EASILY be found by the common man on the street...but business isn't about superior decision making...it's about who you know...who you went to school with...and how readily you can lie to maintain your position to build your parachute up while floating to your next parachute.
Business work differently in other 1st world countries, but in the US, idiots with huge egos a well connected friends, by in large, run US corporations. Obviously there are exceptions.