I love playing AA, but I know enough to say you're being incredibly naive... it's the difference between book learnin' and real life.
Simulations are very useful for training up to a certain point, but there are a gazillion details they lack - very well desribed by earlier posts that sims of today just aren't capable of reproducing.
Until they can literally scare the shit out of you, make you think you're about to die, reproduce the smell of burnt flesh and the cachphony of mortars landing, wounded screaming and SAWs ripping downrange, it will be too sterile.
Screwit... I'm a hardcore user, and I'm doing just fine with DOS. Why would I want to upgrade to Windows 3.1, 95, 2000 or XP, much less Vista?
Do you have any idea how quickly DOS runs on a P4 with a Radeon 9800?
nobody is gonna build a water cooled reactor anymore anyway.
The next generation of pebble bed reactors are cooled by argon or other non-reactive gasses.
The smartass in me wants to say "who cares... I won't be using it anyway"... but then
I'm sure M$ is going to regression test all known attack vectors against Vista even if they don't actually add active protection against viri to it. So, forget about past viri infecting it.
people keep posting amazment that the chicoms are able to do this for only $37 AS IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY TELLING THE TRUTH.
I mean, our government (or any government) isn't known as a model of efficiency, but there is at least *some* transparency in what they spend. Doc Oc spent more than $37 mil for the tritium that went into his machine, and that was in Hollywood!
My first point: This is a natural extension of the roots of each operating system. Windows was always intended to be point and click, and unix always was, until very recently, a command based os.
My second point: the most inane of articles provoke the most inane of yes-it-is-no-it-isn't debates.
in all of this discussion of languages, nobody has discussed IMO the most important aspect of a programming language: the economics of using it. Anyway, this whole thread smacks of religous defense of what you know and love, not object dicussion of pros/cons..Net is not faster than C++ is the same way that C++ is slower than assembly. The more you abstract a language, the slower it becomes. When you build a house, you choose a hammer to put in nails, not a tape measure. The same goes for development - choose the right tool for the job. Duh!
While I wouldn't recommend.Net for doing performance-intensive simulations, I would recommend it for just about anything else if I'm actually paying developers - hell, developers are *expensive*.
you're assuming that the "install anyway" feature is intentional, and not a bug. Anybody stupid enough to want a rootkit to track usage is dumb enough to have crappy QA.
It's clear from the threads that nobody likes the idea of a chip that, coupled with some form of fingerprint/some other positive ID will strongly identify someone (regardless of if this *is* that solution).
Maybe I'm a dummy, but what with all the fraud, viruses, script kiddies, cybercrime, blah blah blah, SOME kind of invention of this sort sounds like a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I love playing AA, but I know enough to say you're being incredibly naive... it's the difference between book learnin' and real life.
Simulations are very useful for training up to a certain point, but there are a gazillion details they lack - very well desribed by earlier posts that sims of today just aren't capable of reproducing.
Until they can literally scare the shit out of you, make you think you're about to die, reproduce the smell of burnt flesh and the cachphony of mortars landing, wounded screaming and SAWs ripping downrange, it will be too sterile.
Maybe in another ten years or so.
Screwit... I'm a hardcore user, and I'm doing just fine with DOS. Why would I want to upgrade to Windows 3.1, 95, 2000 or XP, much less Vista? Do you have any idea how quickly DOS runs on a P4 with a Radeon 9800?
nobody is gonna build a water cooled reactor anymore anyway. The next generation of pebble bed reactors are cooled by argon or other non-reactive gasses.
The smartass in me wants to say "who cares... I won't be using it anyway"... but then I'm sure M$ is going to regression test all known attack vectors against Vista even if they don't actually add active protection against viri to it. So, forget about past viri infecting it.
I wholeheartedly vote for the "idiot" label... after all, he did it for a grand total of $40 bucks... that's less than my weekly Starbucks bills.
people keep posting amazment that the chicoms are able to do this for only $37 AS IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY TELLING THE TRUTH. I mean, our government (or any government) isn't known as a model of efficiency, but there is at least *some* transparency in what they spend. Doc Oc spent more than $37 mil for the tritium that went into his machine, and that was in Hollywood!
so then I want dibs on www.www.www, or perhaps just www.www for short.
My first point: This is a natural extension of the roots of each operating system. Windows was always intended to be point and click, and unix always was, until very recently, a command based os.
My second point: the most inane of articles provoke the most inane of yes-it-is-no-it-isn't debates.
in all of this discussion of languages, nobody has discussed IMO the most important aspect of a programming language: the economics of using it. Anyway, this whole thread smacks of religous defense of what you know and love, not object dicussion of pros/cons. .Net is not faster than C++ is the same way that C++ is slower than assembly. The more you abstract a language, the slower it becomes. When you build a house, you choose a hammer to put in nails, not a tape measure. The same goes for development - choose the right tool for the job. Duh!
While I wouldn't recommend .Net for doing performance-intensive simulations, I would recommend it for just about anything else if I'm actually paying developers - hell, developers are *expensive*.
you're assuming that the "install anyway" feature is intentional, and not a bug. Anybody stupid enough to want a rootkit to track usage is dumb enough to have crappy QA.
It's clear from the threads that nobody likes the idea of a chip that, coupled with some form of fingerprint/some other positive ID will strongly identify someone (regardless of if this *is* that solution). Maybe I'm a dummy, but what with all the fraud, viruses, script kiddies, cybercrime, blah blah blah, SOME kind of invention of this sort sounds like a good thing.
technology is unbreakable like the Titanic was unsinkable.