Because statements from snake owners are not scientific evidence. Sure, they can be used to help build the hypothesis, but not to prove/disprove it (which is what the robots were for).
You should go bone up on the scientific method, seems you forgot some of it:P
Lets also not forget that most snake's vision is only acute enough to detect motion effectively - there are exceptions of course. So the tale shaking couples with the heat to draw the snake's attention away from the body with two senses.
Usually a snake's vision is really only adequate to detect motion - so the higher temperature spoofs the thermal detection, and the shaking spoofs the visual. I'd say it's more that than anything else - squirrels aren't exactly mute and do a good job of shouting out about danger... so the use of the tail to signal would be secondary if anything.
Indeed. I wouldn't call this a communication method, but an active defense measure. If you insist on calling this a form of communication, then I suggest "biting" and such be as well.
The point of never pointing at something you do not intend to kill, is that the gun can and will kill, and so should never be pointed at something you don't intend to kill. Does this make sense?
Sure, you can always back down if the threat is gone etc. But you don't point the gun at someone to intimidate, for example. The decision to point a gun at someone should be arrived at the same time that it is decided terminating said person is acceptable and required.
Aren't SC, Diablo, and WoW all done by different divisions of Blizzard? I suppose this could be coming down from a higher level than those units, but I was under the impression they were all fairly autonomous. (Eg Ivrine, North, and whoever does SC)
Our company phones are all verizon, and we have a local repeater on our floor since this building is somehow repellant to all forms of RF (seriously, I can pick nothing up cleanly from 0.5 to 1.0ghz)
Or why not just murder the geoIP database, so all IPs fall within the covered area? Either that, or just wrap it in NAT so it thinks it's on a network that it actually is not?
Either what jcgame69 said, or it's intentionally blacked out so that you can actually see the area around the star (otherwise it would be a big bright flare and you'd have no detail around it)
It would be nice if people would stop being stupid and we could actually say 10^12 in a news article and not get slack-jawed stares. That would solve a lot of this silly ambiguity.
I should add that NOT giving us the server in that first model actually makes sense here too, in that it impedes third-party gateways from springing up. I may not agree with the choice, but I do see it's merit.
I think it much more likely it was done to cut costs and development time.
Which is faster to work with, you think?
1. Dumb client, server who does all the AI and logic. They also get to use all the goodies they learned with WoW, and probably a good portion of the same infrastructure. 2. Smart client, who can do what server does, and a server that does it all as well for MP.
#2 means lots of duplication, which increases maintenance cost/effort etc. #1 is elegant, with the drawback that the client is useless without said server.
I've seen plenty of games use the model #1 has - and there is never an outcry... since the server comes with the client and for single player is used behind the scenes. We don't have that here with D3, however.
Not gonna happen without a server breach. The server code is completely disconnected (that's why SP requires a net connection - not because it authenticates you, but because the client is dumb)
It's not even DRM - it's more that they decided to save time and effort and use as much of the multiplayer code as they could for single player. As a side effect, single player is just a client into a one-player game.
I don't exactly think it's the BEST idea ever, but I do see how it saved a shitton of developer effort - only one place to modify, and it takes your "server code" completely out of the clients hands and leaves it in the servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Newsflash: not everyone shares the same priorities.
Doesn't apply here... because we can't voluntarily attempt to change blood flow like that, we have to do it via motion of the limb or such.
It could be that pumping extra blood into the decoy is an extra risk - eg, a successful strike from the snake would result in more blood loss.
Because statements from snake owners are not scientific evidence. Sure, they can be used to help build the hypothesis, but not to prove/disprove it (which is what the robots were for).
You should go bone up on the scientific method, seems you forgot some of it :P
Lets also not forget that most snake's vision is only acute enough to detect motion effectively - there are exceptions of course. So the tale shaking couples with the heat to draw the snake's attention away from the body with two senses.
Usually a snake's vision is really only adequate to detect motion - so the higher temperature spoofs the thermal detection, and the shaking spoofs the visual. I'd say it's more that than anything else - squirrels aren't exactly mute and do a good job of shouting out about danger... so the use of the tail to signal would be secondary if anything.
Indeed. I wouldn't call this a communication method, but an active defense measure. If you insist on calling this a form of communication, then I suggest "biting" and such be as well.
He. Robin "Roblimo" Miller.
Ah. Well, you could say "kill or destroy" and get the best of both :)
Then your instructor is teaching down.
The point of never pointing at something you do not intend to kill, is that the gun can and will kill, and so should never be pointed at something you don't intend to kill. Does this make sense?
Sure, you can always back down if the threat is gone etc. But you don't point the gun at someone to intimidate, for example. The decision to point a gun at someone should be arrived at the same time that it is decided terminating said person is acceptable and required.
They also say to never point the gun at something you do not intend to kill.
Aren't SC, Diablo, and WoW all done by different divisions of Blizzard? I suppose this could be coming down from a higher level than those units, but I was under the impression they were all fairly autonomous. (Eg Ivrine, North, and whoever does SC)
Good point, that puts it right into the grey area I suppose.
I guess you could liken it to police walking drug dogs around in a parking lot.
Our company phones are all verizon, and we have a local repeater on our floor since this building is somehow repellant to all forms of RF (seriously, I can pick nothing up cleanly from 0.5 to 1.0ghz)
It has it's uses, I'm sure.
Or why not just murder the geoIP database, so all IPs fall within the covered area? Either that, or just wrap it in NAT so it thinks it's on a network that it actually is not?
Self contained! :D
... or are suitably dim compared to the stars we DO see on it, that they are not detected. The universe has quite a large dynamic range.
Clearly those stars are not all out there. There's just a big shell around us with holes poked through!
(... that was a joke, by the way)
Erm, would this even be a visible light camera? It would make more sense to me if this was some other spectra and is just false color.
Either what jcgame69 said, or it's intentionally blacked out so that you can actually see the area around the star (otherwise it would be a big bright flare and you'd have no detail around it)
It would be nice if people would stop being stupid and we could actually say 10^12 in a news article and not get slack-jawed stares. That would solve a lot of this silly ambiguity.
I should add that NOT giving us the server in that first model actually makes sense here too, in that it impedes third-party gateways from springing up. I may not agree with the choice, but I do see it's merit.
I think it much more likely it was done to cut costs and development time.
Which is faster to work with, you think?
1. Dumb client, server who does all the AI and logic. They also get to use all the goodies they learned with WoW, and probably a good portion of the same infrastructure.
2. Smart client, who can do what server does, and a server that does it all as well for MP.
#2 means lots of duplication, which increases maintenance cost/effort etc. #1 is elegant, with the drawback that the client is useless without said server.
I've seen plenty of games use the model #1 has - and there is never an outcry... since the server comes with the client and for single player is used behind the scenes. We don't have that here with D3, however.
Sigh. It's not DRM. It's a dumb client, that doesn't have the code required to drive it all.
The "DRM" aspect is just a side effect. At least call it for what it is.
Not gonna happen without a server breach. The server code is completely disconnected (that's why SP requires a net connection - not because it authenticates you, but because the client is dumb)
I'm in your crowd.
It's not even DRM - it's more that they decided to save time and effort and use as much of the multiplayer code as they could for single player. As a side effect, single player is just a client into a one-player game.
I don't exactly think it's the BEST idea ever, but I do see how it saved a shitton of developer effort - only one place to modify, and it takes your "server code" completely out of the clients hands and leaves it in the servers.