I have never once filled out a form like that where they didn't clearly specify supported platforms at the beginning, and I've filled out a lot. You reap what you sow, man.
I heard that that particular project was never really taken very seriously inside the military. I mean, we explore everything, and that was just another option to explore.
</anecdotal evidence>
The obvious logistical problem of putting a really freakin' heavy hunk of metal up in space aside (and it has to be big enough to have something left when it makes it through the atmosphere at high velocity (why not slow it down? well, that would defeat the purpose, now wouldn't it?)), you now have a really giant, relatively slow-moving target up in space, and one that'll likely never be orbiting anywhere near above what you want to target when you want to target someplace.
Why not geosynchronous orbit? Well, your slow moving target just became a non-moving target. What, just put a butt-ton up there? Hello logistical nightmare issue again...
Additionally, we have enough trouble trying to figure out where our dummy return vehicles are going to land already, and to turn that into a precision strike? Ha!
Why not make it like the shuttle, maneuverable, right? Yes, let's spend as much on a single, non-exploding weapon as we spent on the shuttle... Hell, if it even cost half as much as the shuttle, to eliminate the problems of keeping pesky humans from toasting and just making it a problem of keeping pesky electronic controls from toasting, it'll still be cheaper just to hire an army to dig a big hole at the target instead.
Space to earth bombardment? Neat in theory, but it's still a lot cheaper just to blow people up. Projects like the space plane reduce some obstacles, but not by as much as you'd think. Until a cruise missile stops being 1/10th the cost of just putting something that heavy into space, it's not likely to happen.
As a note here, I think our western expansion was all land purchased from empires that didn't really want to have to manage it anymore, unless I'm mistaken. So, even then, we hardly did anything like conquest.
Of course, to be fair, those empires basically conquered the native folks already living there. But, still, we didn't conquer. We just subjugated.
The government message is still very much that you must have a "productive", high-paying job or you are a failure.
Can't human beings just be ethical enough to want to be productive without it necessarily being propaganda? Maybe people naturally want to feel like they contribute to their social group, and that instinct is influencing modern society in unexpected ways.
And if you walk, walk, walk to the point where that's all you do and drone out all reality, maybe that's a problem too, as the AC suggested. We might even find that gaming itself isn't even a statistically significant factor, and that the addiction component will take affect regardless of what the subject becomes addicted to. That might actually show that, as many here would suggest, gaming itself is not a problem at all.
If the student expects you to tell him or her everything, and is annoyed at the instructor/materials when things go differently, that's a very bad sign.
Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.
Is that even illegal? I think that's the whole reason for the Net Neutrality debate here in the states, and I don't actually know if it's illegal here yet... although I may be ignorant of some more basic law there that covers this kind of thing. But have our more politically enlightened friends in France made it illegal yet?
I don't know how much of that you've read, but I've seen that before, and the general attitude there is that the present developers have no interest at all in adding VP8 support.
Oh, you know what it is? I use the classic comment system instead of the craptastic Slashdot 2.0 system. Looks like just another reason for Slashdot to roll back to the days when the ui didn't suck.
Write something in the reply box
Try pasting something in the box
I have done exactly that for quotes since before Chrome even existed, and switched to Chrome quite a while back. I have never, not even once, had that problem. Ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, way to not be completely insane, man.
Maybe Chrome is just designed to out-perform for real usage conditions, not scrolling up and down like a jackass.
He's saying you're an idiot.
I have never once filled out a form like that where they didn't clearly specify supported platforms at the beginning, and I've filled out a lot. You reap what you sow, man.
Why not just use Privoxy?
<anecdotal evidence>
I heard that that particular project was never really taken very seriously inside the military. I mean, we explore everything, and that was just another option to explore.
</anecdotal evidence>
The obvious logistical problem of putting a really freakin' heavy hunk of metal up in space aside (and it has to be big enough to have something left when it makes it through the atmosphere at high velocity (why not slow it down? well, that would defeat the purpose, now wouldn't it?)), you now have a really giant, relatively slow-moving target up in space, and one that'll likely never be orbiting anywhere near above what you want to target when you want to target someplace.
Why not geosynchronous orbit? Well, your slow moving target just became a non-moving target. What, just put a butt-ton up there? Hello logistical nightmare issue again...
Additionally, we have enough trouble trying to figure out where our dummy return vehicles are going to land already, and to turn that into a precision strike? Ha!
Why not make it like the shuttle, maneuverable, right? Yes, let's spend as much on a single, non-exploding weapon as we spent on the shuttle... Hell, if it even cost half as much as the shuttle, to eliminate the problems of keeping pesky humans from toasting and just making it a problem of keeping pesky electronic controls from toasting, it'll still be cheaper just to hire an army to dig a big hole at the target instead.
Space to earth bombardment? Neat in theory, but it's still a lot cheaper just to blow people up. Projects like the space plane reduce some obstacles, but not by as much as you'd think. Until a cruise missile stops being 1/10th the cost of just putting something that heavy into space, it's not likely to happen.
As a note here, I think our western expansion was all land purchased from empires that didn't really want to have to manage it anymore, unless I'm mistaken. So, even then, we hardly did anything like conquest.
Of course, to be fair, those empires basically conquered the native folks already living there. But, still, we didn't conquer. We just subjugated.
The government message is still very much that you must have a "productive", high-paying job or you are a failure.
Can't human beings just be ethical enough to want to be productive without it necessarily being propaganda? Maybe people naturally want to feel like they contribute to their social group, and that instinct is influencing modern society in unexpected ways.
My anecdotal evidence trumps your empirical evidence any day!
I never realized it was our high moral standard that brought us into that war, and not simply an attack on our soil.
And if you walk, walk, walk to the point where that's all you do and drone out all reality, maybe that's a problem too, as the AC suggested. We might even find that gaming itself isn't even a statistically significant factor, and that the addiction component will take affect regardless of what the subject becomes addicted to. That might actually show that, as many here would suggest, gaming itself is not a problem at all.
If the student expects you to tell him or her everything, and is annoyed at the instructor/materials when things go differently, that's a very bad sign.
Sadly, this is almost everyone at my school.
I'm confused... being thankful that war is averted is limited and reactionary? What's the proper response?
Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.
Is that even illegal? I think that's the whole reason for the Net Neutrality debate here in the states, and I don't actually know if it's illegal here yet... although I may be ignorant of some more basic law there that covers this kind of thing. But have our more politically enlightened friends in France made it illegal yet?
Um, did you read the summary? They paid that Sergey guy OVER 9000!!1
My Chrome goes to 11.
I don't know how much of that you've read, but I've seen that before, and the general attitude there is that the present developers have no interest at all in adding VP8 support.
Oh, you know what it is? I use the classic comment system instead of the craptastic Slashdot 2.0 system. Looks like just another reason for Slashdot to roll back to the days when the ui didn't suck.
If something comes out for WebM as good as Handbrake before Chrome drops h264 support, then I'll eat my hat.
How does a software update add hardware decoding support?
The only problem is that there are no good, free video editors that support WebM. Why? Because they all use freakin' h264!
Write something in the reply box
Try pasting something in the box
I have done exactly that for quotes since before Chrome even existed, and switched to Chrome quite a while back. I have never, not even once, had that problem. Ever.
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is you.
I think that's the purpose of Gnash, but I understand that it is woefully inadequate.
Too bad there isn't a fully compatible free alternative eliminating that single drawback...