Comment Re:What? (Score 2) 126
Uhhhh... In general, it's not legal to not pay your employees, but when a company has run out of money, it's run out of money. This is how going bankrupt works...
Uhhhh... In general, it's not legal to not pay your employees, but when a company has run out of money, it's run out of money. This is how going bankrupt works...
The problem is that this doesn't solve the problem. The problem that NSI calling addresses is that not everyone is prepared. Maybe I (as a brit) visit the US, and don't get a temporary SIM while I'm there - my SIM can't be used to make any calls at all... Except for that crucial 911 call that I wasn't prepared for.
Handing out free 911-only SIMs doesn't make it so that someone who is unprepared can call.
Well, the question is simple. Do receiving 70% of the calls from NSI phones being trolls cause more irreversible consequences than not receiving the 30% that are not trolls.
It may well be that more than twice as many trolls in fact cause more legitimate emergencies to go unattended than simply not receiving the legitimate NSI calls causes.
Bear in mind that KSP doesn't model several important aspects of returning to the earth (or Kerbal). It doesn't cover keeping the thing pointing in the right direction so that you don't die in a fireball. It doesn't cover keeping the thing from entering the atmosphere too steeply so that you don't die in a fireball. It doesn't cover keeping the thing from (not) entering the atmosphere too shallowly so that you don't die in the frozen wastes of space.
Aside from these basics of getting the thing flying the right way, it also doesn't cover keeping the temperature/oxygen level/g-forces/... within the capsule at reasonable levels.
"pixel" blocky art is also a cost saving measure.
Not at all - good pixel art takes way more man hours to produce than good 3D art. Heck, even bad pixel art does. It's much harder to convey an idea in a limited pallete and limited resolution than it is with all that beautiful smooth space available.
Personally, I hate the result, but that doesn't mean it's easy to make.
but unlike jazz it is not obnoxious to everyone else.
No, I can assure you, I find pixel art actively obnoxious. Not only does it look terrible (IMO), but someone actively put extra effort into making it look terrible.
Except that 1) you're looking at prototypes 2) only 50% of the accidents were while the computer was in control 3) accidents per person/vehicle is not what you care about, it's accidents per mile.
But that, in and of itself doesn't disprove the existence of a trend which does not show any sign of slowing.
There's a trend? It doesn't show any sign of slowing?
Where's your data? Show me the trend line, and show me that it's not slowing. As far as I can see, some people moved email to the web a decade or two ago, and since then, nearly nothing else has moved into being a web app.
You realise that humans were driving them in 50% of the 4 cases, right?
Because someone being blamable for accidents is much more important than having fewer accidents in the first place, right?
To be fair, 2 of the accidents happened while under human control. That suggests that yes, the computers are at least as good as the humans... That said, the sample size is tiny, and critical info like miles driven is missing, so who knows.
Nope, completely the reverse. The company that owns the copyright is the one for which you were working - that is, your shell company. The only time that changes is if you have an explicit copyright assignment to someone else.
Being there to profit from my work, and being my friend are two entirely orthogonal concepts. In fact, him profiting from my work, and me profiting from my work are two orthogonal concepts too. It is entirely possible (and very common) for an employment contract to be a win/win scenario for both parties - one party is getting work, the other party is getting the necessary environment to make their skills valuable, both are getting profit out of it.
Why cheaper? What if the hardware is already owned? What if the systems therein are running just fine as expected? If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Because when that existing hardware breaks, it'll be much more expensive to completely rewrite everything than it would have been to just keep it properly maintained all along.
The only reason you would have that code still running on those chips is because it's not forward compatible with something more modern. Otherwise someone would have transitioned to some much cheaper, more recent, commodity hardware, and saved the business a lot of cash.
That's definitely not good engineering, or something to brag about.
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.