Luckily Top Gear is mostly scripted. It seemed like improvisation, but that's mostly due to the script being very closely written for their real personalities; the old presenters basically played charicature versions of themselves.
I believe if they had just Rory and Chris Harris with somebody actually funny as lead presenter and slightly altered the format, new Top Gear would have been a lot better. Their bits are actually interresting and they seem to know their way around cars. Instead we were left with an annoying git as lead and a show which seems to actually double down on the crappiest part "some B-stars I couldn't give a fuck less about driving around in a car I couldn't give a fuck less about".
The problem with separate "cheater" servers is that it would give the cheat makers a fully functional and risk-free testing ground to improve the cheating tools upto a point where they become indistinguishable from a really good human player. When they get to that point, there is nothing stopping the grievers from cheating on the normal servers too. Having servers where cheat makers are allowed effectively accelerates cheating on normal servers in exchange for a very short and only marginally improved situation.
then you make the real money with movie/TV adaptations.
You mean plays, right? I mean; recordings of plays are like recordings of musical performances. In the words of GP: Getting paid when a machine plays a recording is ludicrous!
The only thing AMD proved is that you could glue 64-bit operands onto a 32-bit processor and that people cared more about running their old software slightly faster than running future software much faster. Thanks to AMD, we're still stuck with one of the first and worst CPU architectures imaginable. The only reason x86/x64 can outperform competitors is due to huge research budgets pushed into eaking out increasingly smaller improvements. It required an entirely new market to give ARM the inroads it needed to start throwing around large research budgets too. I suspect at some point ARM will move onto the desktop (Microsoft-willing) and then Intel can finally start retiring their x86-limited CPU.
The only effect that blocking filesharing traffic will have is that people will find ways to disguise filesharing traffic as normal traffic and it ends up adding additional bandwidth overhead for the disguising.
Just because a car shouldn't, doesn't mean it won't.
You might not care about it, but some software engineer will have to play god in choosing how to deal with these situations. And yes; choosing to ignore or walk away from it is also moral choice.
Brilliant! Why didn't anybody else think of this? But what if the car, through no fault of it's own, ends up in a situation where an accident cannot be avoided?
Cobol was designed almost 60 years ago. No doubt that if Cobol was created today, it wouldn't stand a chance. Fortunately Javascript is unlikely to resemble that fossil, ever.
Modern Cobol might have a prettier syntax, but the language features itself are still rather unique and, for it's specific niche of batch programming, superior to alternatives. There are still very few language that can consistently beat Cobol on performance for batch programming.
Java competed with Flash, not with Javascript. Java, like Flash, was something that ran inside a rectangle on a page. Javascript ran as the page itself.
Python has remarkably good backwards compatibility. A number of Python 3 features were actually backported to Python 2. And Python 2 still sees excellent continued support.
Backporting features and active development on versions "replaced" eight years ago aren't very good signs of backwards compatibility.
And there's the excellent "2to3" tool which can quickly and reliably convert nearly all Python 2 code to Python 3 code
Your definition of "backwards compatibility" seems to be different from the definition used by the rest of the world.
Because it was already voted for. Without being able to show a clear posibility of a different result, it's pointless to have a redo. The number of people who voted the first time were considered representative, so if they assume more people will vote this time, they should assume more people from the other side will vote too. Thus the only way to demonstrate a redo might yield different results is by demonstrating that the majority of all eligable voters will both want to vote and want to vote for a different result than the first referendum. Unless you think the first referendum was somehow fraudulent or unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
Ofcourse not, they would have used fish.
Luckily Top Gear is mostly scripted.
It seemed like improvisation, but that's mostly due to the script being very closely written for their real personalities; the old presenters basically played charicature versions of themselves.
I believe if they had just Rory and Chris Harris with somebody actually funny as lead presenter and slightly altered the format, new Top Gear would have been a lot better. Their bits are actually interresting and they seem to know their way around cars.
Instead we were left with an annoying git as lead and a show which seems to actually double down on the crappiest part "some B-stars I couldn't give a fuck less about driving around in a car I couldn't give a fuck less about".
The problem with separate "cheater" servers is that it would give the cheat makers a fully functional and risk-free testing ground to improve the cheating tools upto a point where they become indistinguishable from a really good human player. When they get to that point, there is nothing stopping the grievers from cheating on the normal servers too. Having servers where cheat makers are allowed effectively accelerates cheating on normal servers in exchange for a very short and only marginally improved situation.
At the very least, the cheat makers are guilty of the "unfair competition" claim; it's their main selling point ;)
Who are those 9-to-5 day job indy artists you like so much?
If you reform copyrights, you'll have better, more plentiful music.
And you'd have additional incentive for living artists to continue making new works, which is what copyright was intended for after all.
then you make the real money with movie/TV adaptations.
You mean plays, right? I mean; recordings of plays are like recordings of musical performances. In the words of GP: Getting paid when a machine plays a recording is ludicrous!
Yeah, nobody actually WRITES music, it's just people on stage singing whatever and playing random notes.
I wonder how they invision getting the enginepower to the tires efficiently.
...except for any car that is actually on the road, considering the tires lack treads.
The only thing AMD proved is that you could glue 64-bit operands onto a 32-bit processor and that people cared more about running their old software slightly faster than running future software much faster. Thanks to AMD, we're still stuck with one of the first and worst CPU architectures imaginable. The only reason x86/x64 can outperform competitors is due to huge research budgets pushed into eaking out increasingly smaller improvements. It required an entirely new market to give ARM the inroads it needed to start throwing around large research budgets too. I suspect at some point ARM will move onto the desktop (Microsoft-willing) and then Intel can finally start retiring their x86-limited CPU.
I guess that gets the price of a surface pro 4 down from "insanely overpriced" to "absurdly overpriced".
The only effect that blocking filesharing traffic will have is that people will find ways to disguise filesharing traffic as normal traffic and it ends up adding additional bandwidth overhead for the disguising.
Just because a car shouldn't, doesn't mean it won't.
You might not care about it, but some software engineer will have to play god in choosing how to deal with these situations. And yes; choosing to ignore or walk away from it is also moral choice.
Denying a problem exists doesn't actually solve the problem.
Brilliant!
Why didn't anybody else think of this?
But what if the car, through no fault of it's own, ends up in a situation where an accident cannot be avoided?
Atleast the "secret criteria" could be easily fixed by making it output it's reasoning.
Cobol was designed almost 60 years ago. No doubt that if Cobol was created today, it wouldn't stand a chance. Fortunately Javascript is unlikely to resemble that fossil, ever.
Modern Cobol might have a prettier syntax, but the language features itself are still rather unique and, for it's specific niche of batch programming, superior to alternatives. There are still very few language that can consistently beat Cobol on performance for batch programming.
Java competed with Flash, not with Javascript.
Java, like Flash, was something that ran inside a rectangle on a page. Javascript ran as the page itself.
Python has remarkably good backwards compatibility. A number of Python 3 features were actually backported to Python 2. And Python 2 still sees excellent continued support.
Backporting features and active development on versions "replaced" eight years ago aren't very good signs of backwards compatibility.
And there's the excellent "2to3" tool which can quickly and reliably convert nearly all Python 2 code to Python 3 code
Your definition of "backwards compatibility" seems to be different from the definition used by the rest of the world.
Because it was already voted for.
Without being able to show a clear posibility of a different result, it's pointless to have a redo.
The number of people who voted the first time were considered representative, so if they assume more people will vote this time, they should assume more people from the other side will vote too.
Thus the only way to demonstrate a redo might yield different results is by demonstrating that the majority of all eligable voters will both want to vote and want to vote for a different result than the first referendum.
Unless you think the first referendum was somehow fraudulent or unfair.
The only reasonable "large enough fraction" in this case would be atleast 50%+1.
How about a third referendum if the second referendum ends up with an "exit" vote too?
But most probably agreed on the assumption that the vote would be "in", so I doubt many will try to stick to their promise.