But that's besides the point because the game was never designed to be played by a machine. What an AI could exploit is very different from what players can exploit. A good player can definitely make use of speed to pull off some amazing feats, but only very rarely will this actually save them if they didn't have a good strategy behind it (and a good part of their win would be that their opponent made mistakes, was too greedy). An AI could outright break the game by spamming specific actions that a player is not expected to be able to and thus where no constraints exist.
Thankfully, it'd be easy to ensure that the officially sanctioned API prevents input flooding to stop those techniques from becoming dominant.
Indeed. Your data comes from the last decade. The USSR stopped existing in 1991. Ergo, your data is completely irrelevant. Way to go talking down to someone else when you didn't even parse their sentence properly!
Subs work in a lot of contexts. For instance, it makes far more sense for me to sub for Google Music at $8/mo than to buy the occasional album - I get access to a significantly wider collection and it costs me less to do so. Same goes for Netflix, especially when you share that with a few family members.
Cars... Well, it could work. A significant proportion of cars currently on the road are rentals, and aren't those just time-limited subscriptions? I don't know whether it'd be economically viable for the company, whatever they might say (the Chinese sure appear to love blowing a lot of hot air and make wild claims during announcements), but if the pricing is in line with renting a car, it could find buyers, especially if there's no lease per se.
Thats his problem right there, you cant simulate a universe without changing it (or destroying it?), so you have a recursive problem. Or consider the energy use. Im sure there are other ways to poke holes in his attention seeking headline.
You're assuming that the simulated physics and the physics of the universe that contains the simulation are the same. That's a bad assumption. For all we know, quantum mechanics (which don't really say what you're saying, but let's go with it anyway) is just an artifact of the simulation.
Cyanogenmod and FireOS are two competing OS's using AOSP as a basis which are found preinstalled on phones. It's not because the latter isn't available in Europe that Google should be blamed for it.
This isn't about DRM, it's about having a cable that respects the spec. When the spec was low-power, low-risk (like USB2), it wasn't that bad to have a bad cable, but USB3 can deliver over 100W. A bad cable can start fires.
If they actually wanted to solve it, they could simply make it illegal to perform transactions with entities located in Bermuda and other similar countries? It's not like there's much legitimate business being done through those places, and if the entire EU decided to block them, they'd have to change quick.
I'll readily agree that he worded it poorly and I disagree with much of the premise, but... Is the punishment in line with the offense here? He spoke his mind out, something Americans seem all too eager to do and say they have a right to, and then the backlash was not only severe, but persisted for years down the line and probably will for years further. That's a bit much, don't you think? That you can essentially destroy your life in a single act, one that is neither immoral nor illegal?
Actually, I'd say that C# is a pretty good middle ground. It still has a "master" in Microsoft, so you don't have the design by committee issues (no clear direction, slow development cycles, etc.), but they've also been listening to feedback and implementing it pretty consistently, on top of adding their own stuff. As a result, C# has evolved really quickly and overtook Java many releases ago. They keep pumping out more features, from the convenient to the groundbreaking, with every release. With the opensourcing of many elements of the language, C# could actually be an excellent alternative to Java for Google to consider (and with Xamarin, they already have an idea of what it'd look like).
Just look at last year's GOTY to understand where they're coming from. Destiny wasn't a bad game, but it was distinctly underwhelming, falling well short of its promises, with a poor storyline and many lacking elements. There were plenty of much better games released that year that far outshone it. Their criteria seem to be more about "Who's spent the most money" (or perhaps "Who gave us the most money"?) rather than whether the game is good or not.
So while I will readily agree that this current issue is a dick move and probably doesn't save Alphabet all that much money (it's not like the hub was super popular in the first place), I find the comparison to Android rather misplaced.
Google disabled privacy settings on Android
App ops was obviously test software and had not been advertised as a feature. You needed third party apps to enable it and many apps would crash since the (correct, I might add) assumption was that the app would have access to all permissions it had requested. While it's taken them a long time, a modified variant of it has made its way into Marshmallow which now offers granular permissions and requests each when the app first makes use of it, allowing you to determine if the request is justified or not.
Um, no it doesn't. 3DTVs and 3D cinemas look completely awful. Not only are very few films actually shot in 3D, they tend to be shot at 24 fps, which is way too low to make for a smooth 3D experience, and on top of that they tend to be dramatically over-exaggerated to the point of becoming sickness-inducing.
In contrast, VR tends to require 75Hz or more, all the stuff is rendered in true 3D in real time (no faking it) and you can't exaggerate the parallax without causing serious issues and basically sabotaging your game or app, so people don't do it. There are far fewer technical hurdles with VR than with 3D stuff, and most of them revolve around the cost. Cost is not a good indicator of whether a technology will succeed, though, since fairly pricey things have caught on in the past and will continue to do so.
Have you actually tried VR? No? Then I'd perhaps recommend you do so before making such wild claims. It's possible that VR will fizzle out, but to compare it to 3DTV is showing the extent of your experience with the technology (i.e. zero). The biggest problems VR will face are applications and costs, not whether the technology actually works.
The only reason developers might support Oculus and not Vive is because Oculus has given financial aid to a lot of devs to integrate VR into their games or outright make the games in their entirety, with day 1 support for the Rift of course. Nothing's stopping them from supporting the Vive (contrarily to what a lot of uninformed people will claim), but that takes more time and money. HTC/Valve seem much more reluctant to actually kickstart the market with their own money.
Aside from that, it's pretty well-known and accepted that the Vive is the stronger, if more expensive, option. Game developers, even the Windows ones you seem to look down upon, aren't stupid.
Nuclear, alongside geothermal and hydroelectric, is well-suited to handling base load. It "throttles" very slowly - you generally want to keep it at a consistent power output.
This is actually a common misconception. Load following nuclear reactors exist and are a fairly common occurrence in countries with a high nuclear power usage such as France (75% of all electricity production). Their reactors are able to scale between 30% and 100% at 5%/minute. More modern Gen IV reactors can equal or surpass this.
The Pebble Time wasn't as well received as the original Pebble or the Pebble Steel. Its design is fairly unremarkable and it has a huge bezel. It doesn't help that they muddied the waters by making the Pebble Time Steel almost identical to the regular Pebble Time, and then releasing the Pebble Time Round shortly after, which was plagued by a lack of apps/watchfaces and poor battery life.
Then you have a few other issues like irregularly spotty Bluetooth, features disappearing (the original Pebble app was multilingual, but the Pebble Time app is still English only), lack of really high quality apps and watchfaces, somewhat immature technology (their color screen is nice and super readable in the sun, but the colors are still quite faded and reading indoors is difficult, their backlight casts a very annoying blue tint on the whole screen, etc.), poor voice support (they went for their own stuff instead of integrating into Android's and iOS's solutions for it), etc. I still really like my Pebble Time, but I can definitely see the numerous flaws they'd have to correct in order to become truly popular. As it is, unless you're already fairly tech oriented, there's nothing for you there.
AMOLED fundamentally works by emitting light from the individual subpixel elements, it's not an LCD and therefore it does not require backlighting to work. That also means it cannot be transflective.
There's a key difference between phones and tablets though: phones are subsidized by providers. For the vast majority of people, it therefore makes sense to upgrade every 2-3 years, when the phone's been paid off, since otherwise you're essentially paying the same monthly cost for less value. Some providers will lower your bill, but not all of them, and many people don't know or care about it, it's a good reason to get a shiny new toy.
Tablets don't benefit from that dynamic and so are much less likely to get replaced on a regular basis.
Even assuming there were, a device that perfectly re-emitted the signal would be seen as the original source by the car, and there'd be no way of differentiating it. The signal itself can't carry that information, so it can't be encrypted to prevent tampering.
The vast majority of the standards you list have been deprecated because their bandwidth wasn't high enough. Don't worry, corporations don't change standards for the fun of it, they do so because they need to. Some of those standards arose because of competition (the thing we constantly say is good). Very few are actually extraneous (Apple is a big culprit there).
You're not helping your case by picking the one cable length I've never seen. Most cables tend to be at least a few feet, and you can get 10' cables for dirt cheap. Also, unlike wireless, their range is exactly their length. Wifi routers are regularly advertized as having amazing range, but only if you have no walls, live in the desert, have no other electronics active, have a quality device to communicate with and aim it in just the right angle. A cable will always work.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can block ads at the OS level with something like AdFree and remove ads from all apps.
But that's besides the point because the game was never designed to be played by a machine. What an AI could exploit is very different from what players can exploit. A good player can definitely make use of speed to pull off some amazing feats, but only very rarely will this actually save them if they didn't have a good strategy behind it (and a good part of their win would be that their opponent made mistakes, was too greedy). An AI could outright break the game by spamming specific actions that a player is not expected to be able to and thus where no constraints exist.
Thankfully, it'd be easy to ensure that the officially sanctioned API prevents input flooding to stop those techniques from becoming dominant.
Indeed. Your data comes from the last decade. The USSR stopped existing in 1991. Ergo, your data is completely irrelevant. Way to go talking down to someone else when you didn't even parse their sentence properly!
Subs work in a lot of contexts. For instance, it makes far more sense for me to sub for Google Music at $8/mo than to buy the occasional album - I get access to a significantly wider collection and it costs me less to do so. Same goes for Netflix, especially when you share that with a few family members.
Cars... Well, it could work. A significant proportion of cars currently on the road are rentals, and aren't those just time-limited subscriptions? I don't know whether it'd be economically viable for the company, whatever they might say (the Chinese sure appear to love blowing a lot of hot air and make wild claims during announcements), but if the pricing is in line with renting a car, it could find buyers, especially if there's no lease per se.
Thats his problem right there, you cant simulate a universe without changing it (or destroying it?), so you have a recursive problem. Or consider the energy use. Im sure there are other ways to poke holes in his attention seeking headline.
You're assuming that the simulated physics and the physics of the universe that contains the simulation are the same. That's a bad assumption. For all we know, quantum mechanics (which don't really say what you're saying, but let's go with it anyway) is just an artifact of the simulation.
Cyanogenmod and FireOS are two competing OS's using AOSP as a basis which are found preinstalled on phones. It's not because the latter isn't available in Europe that Google should be blamed for it.
This isn't about DRM, it's about having a cable that respects the spec. When the spec was low-power, low-risk (like USB2), it wasn't that bad to have a bad cable, but USB3 can deliver over 100W. A bad cable can start fires.
If they actually wanted to solve it, they could simply make it illegal to perform transactions with entities located in Bermuda and other similar countries? It's not like there's much legitimate business being done through those places, and if the entire EU decided to block them, they'd have to change quick.
I'll readily agree that he worded it poorly and I disagree with much of the premise, but... Is the punishment in line with the offense here? He spoke his mind out, something Americans seem all too eager to do and say they have a right to, and then the backlash was not only severe, but persisted for years down the line and probably will for years further. That's a bit much, don't you think? That you can essentially destroy your life in a single act, one that is neither immoral nor illegal?
I dug around on the website and found this document which seems to indicate that yes, we're talking about a Farnsworth Fusor.
Actually, I'd say that C# is a pretty good middle ground. It still has a "master" in Microsoft, so you don't have the design by committee issues (no clear direction, slow development cycles, etc.), but they've also been listening to feedback and implementing it pretty consistently, on top of adding their own stuff. As a result, C# has evolved really quickly and overtook Java many releases ago. They keep pumping out more features, from the convenient to the groundbreaking, with every release. With the opensourcing of many elements of the language, C# could actually be an excellent alternative to Java for Google to consider (and with Xamarin, they already have an idea of what it'd look like).
Just look at last year's GOTY to understand where they're coming from. Destiny wasn't a bad game, but it was distinctly underwhelming, falling well short of its promises, with a poor storyline and many lacking elements. There were plenty of much better games released that year that far outshone it. Their criteria seem to be more about "Who's spent the most money" (or perhaps "Who gave us the most money"?) rather than whether the game is good or not.
Google disabled privacy settings on Android
App ops was obviously test software and had not been advertised as a feature. You needed third party apps to enable it and many apps would crash since the (correct, I might add) assumption was that the app would have access to all permissions it had requested. While it's taken them a long time, a modified variant of it has made its way into Marshmallow which now offers granular permissions and requests each when the app first makes use of it, allowing you to determine if the request is justified or not.
Re-read what I said: nothing is stopping developers building games for the Rift to turn around and also support the Vive.
Trust me, the technology works quite well.
Um, no it doesn't. 3DTVs and 3D cinemas look completely awful. Not only are very few films actually shot in 3D, they tend to be shot at 24 fps, which is way too low to make for a smooth 3D experience, and on top of that they tend to be dramatically over-exaggerated to the point of becoming sickness-inducing.
In contrast, VR tends to require 75Hz or more, all the stuff is rendered in true 3D in real time (no faking it) and you can't exaggerate the parallax without causing serious issues and basically sabotaging your game or app, so people don't do it. There are far fewer technical hurdles with VR than with 3D stuff, and most of them revolve around the cost. Cost is not a good indicator of whether a technology will succeed, though, since fairly pricey things have caught on in the past and will continue to do so.
Have you actually tried VR? No? Then I'd perhaps recommend you do so before making such wild claims. It's possible that VR will fizzle out, but to compare it to 3DTV is showing the extent of your experience with the technology (i.e. zero). The biggest problems VR will face are applications and costs, not whether the technology actually works.
The only reason developers might support Oculus and not Vive is because Oculus has given financial aid to a lot of devs to integrate VR into their games or outright make the games in their entirety, with day 1 support for the Rift of course. Nothing's stopping them from supporting the Vive (contrarily to what a lot of uninformed people will claim), but that takes more time and money. HTC/Valve seem much more reluctant to actually kickstart the market with their own money.
Aside from that, it's pretty well-known and accepted that the Vive is the stronger, if more expensive, option. Game developers, even the Windows ones you seem to look down upon, aren't stupid.
Nuclear, alongside geothermal and hydroelectric, is well-suited to handling base load. It "throttles" very slowly - you generally want to keep it at a consistent power output.
This is actually a common misconception. Load following nuclear reactors exist and are a fairly common occurrence in countries with a high nuclear power usage such as France (75% of all electricity production). Their reactors are able to scale between 30% and 100% at 5%/minute. More modern Gen IV reactors can equal or surpass this.
The Pebble Time wasn't as well received as the original Pebble or the Pebble Steel. Its design is fairly unremarkable and it has a huge bezel. It doesn't help that they muddied the waters by making the Pebble Time Steel almost identical to the regular Pebble Time, and then releasing the Pebble Time Round shortly after, which was plagued by a lack of apps/watchfaces and poor battery life.
Then you have a few other issues like irregularly spotty Bluetooth, features disappearing (the original Pebble app was multilingual, but the Pebble Time app is still English only), lack of really high quality apps and watchfaces, somewhat immature technology (their color screen is nice and super readable in the sun, but the colors are still quite faded and reading indoors is difficult, their backlight casts a very annoying blue tint on the whole screen, etc.), poor voice support (they went for their own stuff instead of integrating into Android's and iOS's solutions for it), etc. I still really like my Pebble Time, but I can definitely see the numerous flaws they'd have to correct in order to become truly popular. As it is, unless you're already fairly tech oriented, there's nothing for you there.
AMOLED fundamentally works by emitting light from the individual subpixel elements, it's not an LCD and therefore it does not require backlighting to work. That also means it cannot be transflective.
AMOLED is a completely different technology to blue LEDs though.
There's a key difference between phones and tablets though: phones are subsidized by providers. For the vast majority of people, it therefore makes sense to upgrade every 2-3 years, when the phone's been paid off, since otherwise you're essentially paying the same monthly cost for less value. Some providers will lower your bill, but not all of them, and many people don't know or care about it, it's a good reason to get a shiny new toy.
Tablets don't benefit from that dynamic and so are much less likely to get replaced on a regular basis.
Even assuming there were, a device that perfectly re-emitted the signal would be seen as the original source by the car, and there'd be no way of differentiating it. The signal itself can't carry that information, so it can't be encrypted to prevent tampering.
The vast majority of the standards you list have been deprecated because their bandwidth wasn't high enough. Don't worry, corporations don't change standards for the fun of it, they do so because they need to. Some of those standards arose because of competition (the thing we constantly say is good). Very few are actually extraneous (Apple is a big culprit there).
You're not helping your case by picking the one cable length I've never seen. Most cables tend to be at least a few feet, and you can get 10' cables for dirt cheap. Also, unlike wireless, their range is exactly their length. Wifi routers are regularly advertized as having amazing range, but only if you have no walls, live in the desert, have no other electronics active, have a quality device to communicate with and aim it in just the right angle. A cable will always work.