Castro was just trying to get some insurance against a US invasion. The US has a history of invading places in south america just because they didn't like the leaders, even when the people we wanted to put in power in the place where total scumbags. We preferred scumbags we could manipulate with arms deals and money to anyone who the people might choose. It is a miracle that Cuba survived to be honest.

Personally I also think it is also partly because the CIA got their nose bloodied there by Castro back when they preferred US mobsters and business to be in charge over anyone who might actually represent the local population.

That only work with real corporations as they usually need to turn a profit for their shareholders. In this case government, either local or federal will just write them a cheque to cover it.

The only real way to change this is for enough people to flat out refuse to vote for anyone who is not 100% opposed to this, even if that means voting for a smaller party or independent. We also need to throw first past the post voting in the bin and move to proportional representation as it encourages people to vote for smaller parties in this way. It also means those in power do not have absolute power as they are often usually reliant on other coalition parties to vote with them in order to get things done, weaker government is better government.

Why would they care? They can just settle the law suits with your tax money like they do already.

What a stupid example. Of course there are total outliers who this does not apply to, they are very few and far between though.

That depends on your perspective. If you were one of the people who went out peacefully objecting to the way our society works in any of the 1% demonstrations recently and found yourself being pepper sprayed for no apparent reason with no recourse against the police officer that did it you might not be so sure.

So anything your nation does in your name to fuck over foreigners is fair play then is it just because that is their mandate?

The thing to recognise is that foreigners who object to this sort of thing often have very little they can do as a comeback to make it stop. They can't lobby their own government to do anything about it since their government is powerless in the face of the huge US military. So they strike back the only way they can, they attack the easy targets who give their government a mandate to this sort of crap for them: US citizens.

Just to be clear, I am not condoning terrorist attacks on the US, but I do understand how someone who feels aggrieved with the US military or various 3 letter agencies can feel they have no other way of stopping what is happening to them other than flying a plane into a building killing themselves in the process.

Exactly. Uber are really just a huge multinational minicab company. They will then use the advantage of scale to drive smaller local companies out of business. Maybe the local businesses deserve it though, but lets not delude ourselves as to what is happening.

I say this because most minicab firms have their drivers as self employed contractors too so they can avoid having to give them any of the perks that you are entitled to as a regular employee.

Actually, the examples the poster you replied to gave might not be that obvious. The average consumer of these services rates the service based on things like how clean the back seats were, not on the brakes not working or the car having some other intermittent mechanical fault.

Personally, I don't see any difference between Uber and any other cab company other than the fact they use technology. You still notify the company when you want to go somewhere, they send someone who is self-employed then take a cut of the fare.

I also think that these companies need to recognise that often, local laws exist because the people who live in the are want them to. Here in London we have lawa that may or may not (our courts are still deciding the details) restrict their ability to operate. It is not up to us to change our laws to make things easier for some international company head quartered in the US and sending all its profits there. We should change our laws if the we want to and enough people write to their politicians demanding the change.

You might think us a bunch of backward retards or whatever for having such laws, then fine sod off and don't do business here.

Reading the link you posted above, it seems like a bit of a non-factual load of waffle. Nvidia deny paying, Ubisoft deny being paid, and the only sources mentioned are anonymous speculators we have no way of knowing are not just a few paid ATI shills.

Wow, another example of amazing journalism here.

Some guy moaning about Crysis having loads of detailing that is only used in the DirectX11 game. He give loads of examples of this, then posts a summary page of wild speculation with no sources quoted other than his own imagination. He never asks any of the companies involved, he just posts a bunch of stuff about why this might be the case.

I have another possible suggestion as to why this was the case: Crytek like making stuff look overly detailed and include graphics detailing that means their games continue to max out graphics cards long after they are released. They always make they games playable on the budget cards if you crank the detailing down, but they also like catering to people who buy a new graphics card then go back and play a few oldies that they had to crank the detail down on previously. Crytek also probably also quite like their games being used in hardware reviews because their games hammer the hardware.

Ok, congratulations on actually posting an article that was real journalism, with quote sources and not just made up of the authors own conjecture.

The issue here though seems to be that there was an optimisation, moving from x87 to SSE that they did not do on a bunch of legacy code. Instead they rewrote it from scratch, which took slightly longer to use SSE.

This was not them intentionally doing something to hobble a competitor, this was them not doing anything to help them quickly. That is very different.

They did however ultimately fix it:

"PhysX SDK 3.0 was released in May 2011 and represented a significant rewrite of the SDK, bringing improvements such as more efficient multithreading and a unified code base for all supported platforms"

There is a massive difference here, Intel's were intentionally hobbling the code their complier created based on finding a competing vendor name in the product string. They did not say "wait for version 3" like the PhysX case, they just did something then just sat their tight lipped until it went to court and they were forced to change it.

As I said earlier, Nvidia made the all important change to use SSE when running PhysX on the CPU without the FTC being involved.

I think that enough training can bring anyone up to speed if they have a strong willingness to learn and the right attitude. The problem is do you as a business what to invest that much training in that person when it may be cheaper to hire someone else who requires less.

The interesting thing about this is that I have worked a few developers over the years who were great at those sort of complicated chunks of development but were terrible at reviewing other peoples code. Partly, they had the attitude that it "belonged" to someone else so that someone else should fix it, partly it was just that they got bored reading it and just skipped it at lightening speed missing tons of stuff and not spotting bugs.

Someone who is apt at doing code reviews can often be the most important member of a team, regardless of them actually producing large chunks of development themselves if they actually spot the sort of tricky bugs in code that often slip through unit testing as they are actually design issues.

Actually, maybe they are more suited to the Rock Star title in the way that they are going to self-destruct in their own ego fest early on in their career and never survive beyond middle age :)

My money is on 2 to be honest.

Not necessarily. The truth is that taking prisoners in that sort of OP is very dangerous. Especially the sort of prisoner where they are surrounded by other combatants who would quite happily do something suicidal to help them escape. If Osama survived it may well have been at the expense of every other person in that complex.

I am also reminded of the SAS raid on the Iranian Embassy Siege. In that case the SAS topped quite a few people who were no longer a threat. The first was the leader of the terrorists, he had been subdued by armed police officer who managed to keep his gun through the whole siege. The second and third were a couple of unarmed terrorists who had been convinced to surrender by their hostages. The SAS had orders to "make sure there was no ongoing problem after the siege" and they took this to mean long winded trials and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

In the end one terrorist did manage to survive, as executing him after he had been led out of the building in front of the TV cameras would have been a bit iffy.

The truth is that special forces like SEALS are often put in situations where taking prisoners is simply a luxury they cannot afford, unless they are given a strict "must be captured alive" remit. Those sort of missions are probably harder than the ones where you can just shoot anything that moves, especially if the people who you want to take alive are not hostages.