I know this is Idle but there's been a lot of articles related to how people think lately. Myself, I'm perfectly okay with people having different viewpoints. Even outright wrong ones. Why should I care about it?
Oh well, you know, it's OK if people believe stuff that's totally wrong. I mean, what possible consequences could there be? You shouldn't think too hard about stuff, because it can hurt your brain.
This is really about ROE - they're saying that the system is going to capable/allowed to shoot at targets it's detected even if it can't "identify" them.
But it doesn't say that. It implies it can only fire on unidentified targets.
Are you just being obtuse or do you really not understand the concept?
I understand what it's trying to say, but it's worded very poorly. Don't you like to have at least some editorial standards in what you read?
If they identify the intruder and it's an enemy they can fire. If they can't/b? identify the intruder they can still order it to fire.
But that's not what it says. The way it's worded implies they can't fire if they can identify the intruder.
An intruder is a intruder. Why would it matter if they were identifiable? "Oh look, it's Osama Bin Laden, we shouldn't fire because we were able to identify him!"
According to the article 'If the command centre operator cannot identify possible intruders through the robot's audio or video communications system, the operator can order it to fire its gun or 40mm automatic grenade launcher.
Wouldn't it make more sense to fire the guns and grenades if the operator does identify intruders?
"Hey, I don't see anybody around, FIRE THE GUNS!" and "Look, it's an intruder, CEASE FIRE!" doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm rather surprised Google would invest in Zynga, considering their reputation for working with spyware, scam deal sites, personal information harvesters, and other things that Google would warn you about if you clicked on them in Chrome.
Well, Google also bought Doubleclick, so I don't think they have any reservations about buying dodgy companies.
Since when was 5 megapixels "low resolution"? With this type of phone camera, that's pretty much beyond what the optical system of the tiny lens can resolve. And on a proper camera with decent optics, 5MP is enough to create great results.
boring troll is boring. what part of "it makes everything fucking faster" do you not understand?
I understand that perfectly. But how does it make Firefox and Thunderbird "not flake out"? And if you're not using Firefox or IE, other browsers open pretty much instantly without an SSD.
I dropped my latitude d620 on the concrete floor my desk sits on, and it crashed the hard drive instantly. For the replacement drive I let a friend convince me to shell out for the SSD. It's amazing. I no longer have to worry about bad sectors, my battery lasts longer, the machine is cooler, it's quieter, and the OS loads in like 5 seconds to usable state with virus scanner etc.
Have you tried dropping your SSD-equipped laptop onto a concrete floor for a comparison test?
opening big apps like OpenOffice, re-opening firefox or thunderbird when they flake out,
This seems like more of a problem with Firefox and Thunderbird than your system configuration. Seriously, why is Firefox so freaking slow and crashy? It's a lot more economical to ditch such bloated software for something that's better, than to replace your HDDs with SSDs.
And the hard drives on the consoles are so limited. 20gb for an Xbox? please. Oh, they came out with a 250gb. Whooptie fucking doo. You run out of space real quick and they sure as hell won't let you hook up an external drive via usb.
Get a PS3 then. Internal hard drive is user-upgradable with standard 2.5" drives, and allows you to connect external hard drives as well.
Also, if your hard drive becomes corrupted, or whoever you bought it from loses the records of your purchase you can still play your game.
Actually, this is the main advantage of the downloaded game over the disc. If your hard drive dies, you can always re-download the game you purchased via download. If you scratch or otherwise break your disc copy, you're fucked.
so a digital game provides less value than a physical game.
You do realize that the game you buy on disc is also digital, don't you? It wouldn't work very well otherwise. It's not like you get an analog copy when you buy a disc. You do also realize that the game, even when on disc, isn't physical? It's a computer program, not a physical assembly of cogs and mechanisms.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is Idle but there's been a lot of articles related to how people think lately. Myself, I'm perfectly okay with people having different viewpoints. Even outright wrong ones. Why should I care about it?
Oh well, you know, it's OK if people believe stuff that's totally wrong. I mean, what possible consequences could there be? You shouldn't think too hard about stuff, because it can hurt your brain.
and doesn't even include the cost and repercussions after they preform a recall?
What the hell makes you think a recall is going to happen?
This is really about ROE - they're saying that the system is going to capable/allowed to shoot at targets it's detected even if it can't "identify" them.
But it doesn't say that. It implies it can only fire on unidentified targets.
nonono, "Look, it's a friend, CEASE FIRE!"
But if it were a friend, it wouldn't be an "intruder," would it?
Article is talking about identification as in "we know who that is and they are allowed to be here" vs "we don't know who that is so shoot them."
But that's not what it says. By definition, an intruder is not allowed to be there. So why would an identifiable intruder be any less of an intruder?
Are you just being obtuse or do you really not understand the concept?
I understand what it's trying to say, but it's worded very poorly. Don't you like to have at least some editorial standards in what you read?
If they identify the intruder and it's an enemy they can fire. If they can't/b? identify the intruder they can still order it to fire.
But that's not what it says. The way it's worded implies they can't fire if they can identify the intruder.
An intruder is a intruder. Why would it matter if they were identifiable? "Oh look, it's Osama Bin Laden, we shouldn't fire because we were able to identify him!"
The way I see it, it can shoot if it detects an intruder that it cannot identify.
So, identifiable intruders are OK? That doesn't make any sense.
According to the article 'If the command centre operator cannot identify possible intruders through the robot's audio or video communications system, the operator can order it to fire its gun or 40mm automatic grenade launcher.
Wouldn't it make more sense to fire the guns and grenades if the operator does identify intruders?
"Hey, I don't see anybody around, FIRE THE GUNS!" and "Look, it's an intruder, CEASE FIRE!" doesn't make a lot of sense.
check out the coverage on Techcrunch Zynga did a lot of scummy things and teh CEO admitted it.
Yes, but why does it surprise you that Google would partner with them? Google does a lot of scummy things (but likes to pretend otherwise).
With Zyngas past indiscretions I am surprised that Google partnered with them.
Why?
I'm rather surprised Google would invest in Zynga, considering their reputation for working with spyware, scam deal sites, personal information harvesters, and other things that Google would warn you about if you clicked on them in Chrome.
Well, Google also bought Doubleclick, so I don't think they have any reservations about buying dodgy companies.
low resolution, low 5 MP camera,
Since when was 5 megapixels "low resolution"? With this type of phone camera, that's pretty much beyond what the optical system of the tiny lens can resolve. And on a proper camera with decent optics, 5MP is enough to create great results.
Well, atleast Swedish copyright law states explicitly that machine generated things can't be copyrighted because they're not creative.
But what about the mutterings of muppet chefs?
boring troll is boring. what part of "it makes everything fucking faster" do you not understand?
I understand that perfectly. But how does it make Firefox and Thunderbird "not flake out"? And if you're not using Firefox or IE, other browsers open pretty much instantly without an SSD.
I dropped my latitude d620 on the concrete floor my desk sits on, and it crashed the hard drive instantly. For the replacement drive I let a friend convince me to shell out for the SSD. It's amazing. I no longer have to worry about bad sectors, my battery lasts longer, the machine is cooler, it's quieter, and the OS loads in like 5 seconds to usable state with virus scanner etc.
Have you tried dropping your SSD-equipped laptop onto a concrete floor for a comparison test?
opening big apps like OpenOffice, re-opening firefox or thunderbird when they flake out,
This seems like more of a problem with Firefox and Thunderbird than your system configuration. Seriously, why is Firefox so freaking slow and crashy? It's a lot more economical to ditch such bloated software for something that's better, than to replace your HDDs with SSDs.
... people judge others' posts by the quality of their gear rather than just the quality of the posts. On Slashdot, this doesn't happen.
No, on slashdot we judge the quality of a post by how low one's user ID is.
Ah, but then you'd need a space-tug-tug to pull your space-tug back when it fails...
Yo Dawg, I heard you liked space tugs...
And the hard drives on the consoles are so limited. 20gb for an Xbox? please. Oh, they came out with a 250gb. Whooptie fucking doo. You run out of space real quick and they sure as hell won't let you hook up an external drive via usb.
Get a PS3 then. Internal hard drive is user-upgradable with standard 2.5" drives, and allows you to connect external hard drives as well.
if i pay for it, i want it in a shiny container that i can put with the rest of my collection.
That's just vanity. You're contributing to waste and environmental damage just to stroke your ego. Quite outdated thinking.
Also, physical media can be sold on, downloads.... not so much
Now that's a decent reason to buy the physical media. Just wanting a shiny package... not so much.
Physical media will always be far superior to digital.
That must explain why you wrote this on paper as a letter to the editor of a newspaper, rather than on an internet forum. Oh, wait.
Also, if your hard drive becomes corrupted, or whoever you bought it from loses the records of your purchase you can still play your game.
Actually, this is the main advantage of the downloaded game over the disc. If your hard drive dies, you can always re-download the game you purchased via download. If you scratch or otherwise break your disc copy, you're fucked.
so a digital game provides less value than a physical game.
You do realize that the game you buy on disc is also digital, don't you? It wouldn't work very well otherwise. It's not like you get an analog copy when you buy a disc. You do also realize that the game, even when on disc, isn't physical? It's a computer program, not a physical assembly of cogs and mechanisms.
New punctuation: "~" at the end of a line to indicate 'Snarky'. http://harns.blogspot.com/
You really shouldn't do that. It just encourages the same kind of morons who need tacky emoticons to indicate humor.
The Altair never sold as "PC".
But that doesn't mean it wasn't one
But it wasn't. Anybody who thinks the Altair was a "personal computer" must be off their meds.