I have both Apples to Apples and Cards Against Humanity, and I prefer Apples to Apples. The gameplay of both is essentially the same but CAH derives most of its humor from being as scatological, gross, and kinky as possible. I understand why that appeals to people, I just generally prefer the tamer "good clean fun" version that can be played with kids and grandparents.
Or you can mix the two and play Apples Against Humanity.
The article is pointless. Okay, Google is trying to replace the current "controlled" road test with a simulator. The article goes on to say how wonderful simulators are. So what? It says *nothing* about the current regulations. What are they intended to test? Are they done once per model? For every firmware revision? Every individual vehicle? Are they meant to be fully exhaustive or are they more on the order of the driving test a person must take to get a license? Without knowing what the current tests are there's no way to judge whether a simulator is an adequate substitution.
Pure personal speculation: I suspect that the main goal of the testing requirement is to give a warm fuzzy feeling to a non-technical person. It lets them see a tangible object responding to tangible threats. It probably puts the car through a series of common scenarios and some uncommon but easily imagined dangers, so the non-technical human can see the car dodge obstacles and walk away confident that the robot responds like a human would. If that's the case, a simulator will never be sufficient since it's not really a test of the car's performance, but a test of the human's confidence in the car.
For complex uses... it depends on the niche. Certainly for software development, Linux wins for basically everything except native and
.NET Windows apps. For other uses, I will grant you, the professional-grade applications are not available (even if they run in Wine). But I'm not an artist. I'm a developer.
I agree that you should use whatever OS runs the apps you need. Here's some anecdotal evidence to throw into the discussion:
I work in a software shop with probably 100-200 developers. Our software runs on Linux, but on specialized hardware so far removed from the desktop that you might as well consider it an embedded system. Compilation and debugging is all done on the target machines. Some people do their edits on the target machine, others prefer to edit locally and copy to the target to compile. We have no IDE and no particular reliance on office suites or anything like that. As long as you have an ssh client you're golden.
So, the choice of desktop OS has absolutely no bearing on development here. Everyone gets a laptop. You have your choice of Apple or Dell hardware (both with pretty similar specs) and any OS you want. Of the entire population of developers, roughly 75% use Macs with OSX; 20% use Dell hardware with Linux or (Open|Free|Net)BSD; and 5% use Dell hardware with Windows.
There you have it. For one small sampling of developers where the desktop machine is purely personal preference, the desktop environment of choice is OSX.
If you approve of something, then you cannot tolerate it because tolerance implies disapproval. It's part of the definition.
tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with without interference
It's not our fault that you can't read a dictionary, or refuse to accept the meanings of words. Look inward.
Look inward yourself. You missed a very important word in that definition: "necessarily". The definition says that it's not necessary to like or agree with something in order to tolerate it. Your approval is not needed to tolerate something, but it's not prohibited either.
After all, it's not our fault that you can't read a dictionary, or refuse to accept the meanings of words.
When you ask for meaningful evidence of misogyny on slashdot (or wider society) you only underscore your blindness to the problem. You shouldn't need anyone to point out examples, because an intelligent person would be able to find a discussion and skim it.
Wow, did you really just say that? Because that sounds exactly like the stereotypical line used by a woman when she is mad at her boyfriend/husband: "I shouldn't have to tell you why I'm mad! You should know why I'm mad!"
The response, "I shouldn't have to tell you the problem, you should already recognize the problem." never helps advance the discussion. If you don't tell someone what's wrong and why it's a problem how can you ever expect them to change their behavior?
I don't mind shooting up some virtual people, I want to be as far away from real war as I possibly can be.
Yes, as an adult, you realize that. But would you have realized it as a child? Probably not, if the only experience you had with guns and death was video-game based.
I was a child in the 70s. We didn't have video games then, but we did have nasty brutish violent cartoons. We had concerned citizen groups whining "Think of the children!" right and left, but I don't remember anybody getting an anvil dropped on them because they saw it in a cartoon.
Games are just the modern replacement for cartoons in the same tired argument. Give kids some credit. They really can tell fantasy apart from reality.
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger