..."Solo"...the problem is that The Last Jedi was the worst Star Wars movie ever (yes, worse than Episode I) and that pissed people off. They will watch Episode IX since they wan't to know how the story will end, but they won't bother with an "anthology" movie outside of the main storyline since they don't feel like they are missing anything important.
You may be correct, but there could be another factor... Solo is unlike the rest of the Star Wars movies because it's not about magical force-wielding Jedi/Sith. Solo's characters are more "average" people than most Star Wars movies. Rogue One is the closest to Solo in terms of Force-wielding characters and Jedi vs Sith plot lines, but Rogue One characters clearly had latent/untrained Force powers, and they fought against chief evil Sith Lord Vader. Anyway, the lack Jedi/Sith and Force powers might be hard for the masses to get into or at least hard to get into as summer action blockbuster sort of movie.
I'd rather have a nuclear battery in a pacemaker that lasts a lifetime than having to deal with surgery every 10 years to replace a conventional one, risking infection and other complications.
Right... and there there are many other technologies with relatively low-energy needs that could benefit from a very long lasting battery. Space applications (satellites, probes, etc.) or long-term monitors/sensors in remote areas, oceans, power plants, building structures, etc., or independent power sources critical parts of a larger systems (power grid infrastructure, interfaces, etc.)
...I don't think 'nostalgia' is such a bad thing. Why? Because it seems that 'games' aren't so much about 'games' anymore, they're about how much money they can leech out of your wallet..... So you get these 'classic' game packages, no cartridges required, and unlike the old hardware it just works. Plug it into your TV and play it, no huge investment of time or money required, don't need to tie up your phone or computer with it, etc.
First, I agree that nostalgia is not necessarily a bad thing. I have indulged in my nostalgia at times... no shame. However, with all due respect I think you have some cognitive dissonance here. You say new games are "about how much money they can leech out of your wallet," but you support buying a 'classic' game package [i.e. a new product] because it doesn't tie up your phone or computer, which are products you already invested money in. These are both leeching money from consumers, just in different ways. I don't see either being inherently better than the other. YRMV...
That said, when it comes to entertainment spending I'm a free market sort of person... it's your money/time to do what you want with; and a company is welcome to sell nostalgia if there's a market for it. Don't let the opinion of a rando online, like me, get in your way.
Health, sanitation, and disease prevention aren't legitimate reasons?
This statement was correct 100+ years ago; or if you currently live in a third world country without access to basic sanitation (i.e. clean bath/shower and soap).
Okay, seeing as how we're so similar, I'm going to ask you this very pointed question about today's digital music streaming infinite everything options.
You didn't ask a question... but I think I see your point anyway.... that having more options today isn't necessarily making our lives better. That it creates distractions many people would be better off without.
I'm 38, with a house, and a specific friend is similarly situated. Every few weeks, we get together for a day of "cooking-for-the-freezer". We basically look for recipes that benefit from more prep, can be done in bulk, and frozen (vacuum-packed) long-term, with a very quick, or at least very easy on-the-day effort. The idea is to be able to easily cook wonderful meals for family.
So, we do things like 20 pounds of seasoned ground lamb, ready for easy-bbq kebobs, marinated chicken thighs, flat-packed for quick thaw and instant bbq, falafel pate ready for frying, cheese blintzes that need nothing more than 20 minutes in the oven unattended, meatballs already cooked and sitting in sage broth, ready for the perfect meatball sub on-demand, that sort of thing.
Obviously, with a big 12-hour day of cooking, we put on some music. I like to simply turn on one of the random music channels on cable, and ignore it for the day. He's got six different music streaming subscriptions. So he prefers to plug his phone into my speakers, and stream whatever.
On the face of it, it's all the same to me. But in reality, every few minutes, he's changing the feed, switching songs, adjusting the volume, reconnecting, whatever.
It's the classic problem of the power to choose. When you have it, you use it. And it's just the dumbest distraction.
In my opinion.
37 here, married, house, 2 dogs, my wife and I have no desire for kids... we tend to favor cooking up big batches of soups for the freezer, or one or two large meals early in the week we can work on from the fridge. Music [or NPR] is often on when cooking. My wife usually chooses the music (more on this below) and neither of us fiddles with it or waste time other than changing a CD when it ends or skipping an unwanted track/stream. So, today's selection options aren't a distraction for us when we're together.
If left to my own devices I prefer heavy metal and have since I was ~13 years old. Could have I made "better" music choices, sure, but try telling that to a teenager and I am who am now. But, I learned long ago not to subject people around me to my music. That's why I'm happy to let my wife choose the music. I know my preferred music is polarizing and it's not important enough to me to be a barrier in my relationships with others. With rare exceptions I can usually find something to appreciate in most music.* So, like you I can just let it be the background and not my focus - not a distraction. However, there are times I am alone and want MY music and I would never willingly give up the choice digital platforms offer, the choice I wished for as a teenager. There's nothing inherently distracting in having choices either. Choice in music [and many other things] is only distracting when you let be distracting. I also suspect people easily distracted by music, like possibly your partner, would likely find something else to distract themselves with if music wasn't available.
* - I was lead trombone in my high school orchestra, and in college a DJ and manager of the college radio station, so I have a decent ear for sound and can appreciate a variety of music, despite the stereotypes about metal fans.
All kidding around aside.. most online dating is just fail, fail, fail to start with, and 'Facebook dating'?
It depends on what you are looking for... I had a lot of success meeting people... I found my current wife there, though.
Right... it depends on your expectations. Online dating can also be good dating practice too. Years ago the dates I went on via online dating services made me more comfortable being on a date, asking good questions, interacting more positively, reading subtle cues, etc. I didn't find my soul mate online, but online dating wasn't a failure either because the experience gained by online dating helped when I met my wife [the typical way] through a mutual friend.
...I've never cared about music that way. I really don't care if I get the niche, or the pop, or the crazy. I go to live concerts as a part of a theatre subscription, and I see/listen to whatever they bring in -- it's a small local theatre, and all of the acts are world experts at whatever. If I like it, I buy it in the hopes that they come back. Same with live music at a restaurant. The music is so background to my life, that it just doesn't matter to me.
I get it, and arguably I am similar now. Music is background, not my focus. I go to a few concerts each year. I'm happy enough with free streaming music options and the CDs/MP3s I have that I probably would not pay for a service. Your theater subscription aside, we're probably not that different in regards to our music habits.... I just get riled up when hear what sounds like pining for the days when "free" radio ruled, because radio didn't serve me well in my youth. Even though music is not as important to me now I appreciate that digital platforms, both free and paid, provide so many more options now.
Music is pure entertainment, and has zero monetary value. Zero monetary value usually means zero money paid.
I grew up in a world with free wireless radio, and free wireless television, everywhere. I've never paid to listen to music, and I've never paid to listen to news. I ain't starting now.
You position yourself as a rebel here, but you're not. You are describing the status quo of decades past when music listening options were limited to whatever music [and commercials] the industry choose to feed people. The industry fought tooth and nail against digital music [and consumer freedom] to maintain that old stranglehold on the market and your rebellion or value judgment would hand the reins back to them. You may not have paid money for that "free" radio, but you paid by having your options limited by the record industry; you paid by rolling the dice at the record store hoping the single track you heard on the radio was worth buying a full album; you paid multiple times for the same songs as the mediums went from record to tape to CD [and maybe to digital]. I know this because I lived during those times too, but I don't want to go back. There is undeniably far more choice in music for consumers now. Niche genres can find audiences in ways they never could before. Artists have alternatives to circumvent the recording industry machine. Sometimes, but not always, the extra music choice and freedom has a cost, but music was never really free before either.
Wait until hardware advances till we can get 60FPS 8K.
That would keep pace with the TV tech cycle, and Sony also sells TVs....
Also, giving VR gaming a couple more years to mature may be good for Sony so they can be sure their new console can support whatever that market does.
It's also well-documented that the tech upgrade cycle is generally slowing down for all consumer computing devices (e.g. desktop/laptop computers, mobile phones/tablets, etc.), so if everything in the market is slowing it's silly to expect game consoles would maintain the same upgrade schedules as decades past.
Biggest issue for the Link was not being able to port over voice channels. I was gonna buy one, then realized after research that I couldn't access discord (kinda expected but disappointing) or any other voice channel through Steam itself.
Agreed the lack of a user-friendly voice option is a big drawback to Steam Link. I can understand Valve not wanting to deal with supporting third-party chat software, but it is odd to me they didn't at least incorporate Steam's chat system into Steam Link. Or did they?...It's not on my radar. I don't use Steam chat (does anyone?) and I don't own a Steam Link.
Combined with the Steam controller, I could have seen playing several games from the couch.
I bought the Steam Controller for my PC (for Rocket League and platformers) but returned it after two days of fumbling with it. The touchpads are a neat concept, but I found the lack of a tactile stick or button difficult, and pressing the touchpad was awkward. The rear double triggers weren't helping me either. YRMV. I switched it for a cheaper Xbox 360 (USB) controller and have been very happy.
It really depends on the type of game you're playing.....FPS and racing games, yeah, I can see the couch being ideal for that... I'd probably buy a console though if I liked that type of game since they are tuned for that type of game.
FWIW, there are many good single-player platformer and puzzle games on Steam that would transfer to the couch+TV really well (games like Limbo, Inside, Deadlight, Tale of Two Brothers, This War of Mine... and many others). Many of those games also available on consoles, but Steamlink is far cheaper.
But, I agree with earlier poster above that SteamLink's lack of an easily accessible chat function hurts it for many titles.
Your carbon nanotubes cord is a "theory" and the cord is only part of the space elevator problem.
The other problem is anchoring the cord to something in orbit (e.g. space station or captured asteroid) to keep it from falling back to Earth. The orbiting anchor would have to be perfectly synchronized to the earth's rotation and regularly corrected for orbit decay. The cord will also be deflected by differential air drag at various elevations, high altitude global air currents, and the occasional hurricane/typhoon. So a system will have to constantly correct the cord and anchor* to keep it straight up and taut, but not too taut, to avoid it falling down or ripping apart to create the solar system's largest flail smashing into the earth.
* - probably by careful firing of many small stabilizing rockets, which is ironic considering that avoiding rocket use is the main reason to build a space elevator in the first place.
Launch loops was already given as an alternative, but airplane-assisted space launches are probably closer... http://www.stratolaunch.com/ne...
I have found that the e-commerce verticals absolutely destroy Amazon on price. Examples.... pet food/supplies...
There is some value in Wal-Mart's network of stores for picking up or returning items too.
I can confirm the pet food example.... At least for the dog food brand I buy, I periodically check it's price on Amazon when I need something to get the free shipping, but they can't even beat the price I pay at my local brick-and-mortar pet store.
...Instead, he emphasizes quality service, low prices, and acts (horrors!) as if customers are people and not simply cows to be milked.
The result is, if I need something, I check Amazon FIRST, and frequently last, as well.
A year ago I might agree, but Amazon has been missing the mark for me and many others lately; in particular their new Amazon Logistics is shipping items slowly, missing deliveries, and the package "tracking" system is a joke. Many Prime members are complaining and canceling because they aren't getting the promised 2-day shipping. On top of that their prices aren't always the cheapest either.
What also makes companies quake in terror are people like you who blindly to go to Amazon without bothering to look elsewhere. They can't compete, if you're not even looking at them. To be fair, Amazon did a lot of things right in the past to get that sort of customer loyalty, but they are making mistakes now and they don't deserve a pass.
Walmart's relatively new to the e-commerce game and are probably stumbling some, but even if these accusations are true, they don't seem like issues that can't be fixed. The 3rd party vendors and customers seeking returns aren't just going to go away, and Wal-mart's profits will reflect that eventually. Also only one side of this story is being told. I know it's fun to shit on Walmart, but I'm going to hold judgment for now.
As an aside, now is a good time for someone to challenge Amazon. The new Amazon Logistics shipping system takes much longer than their shipping used to and is very unreliable. Their customer service admitted they were having some issues to my wife on the phone when she reported a second missed delivery to our house. The private delivery contractors Amazon is using don't seem to know the routes and delivery locations like FedEx and UPS and they are making mistakes. And I know I'm going to sound like a complete schill, but... I bought something on Walmart.com about a month ago for the first time I can ever remember, because it was slightly cheaper than Amazon, with free shipping, so I said "what the hell"...it was delivered in less than a week, like Amazon used to do for me.
One of the biggest difficulties Augmented Reality (AR) systems are trying to overcome is they have to predict every angle the user might view their world from, otherwise the AR overlay will just look wrong and won't be useful, but an updated pre-drawn 3D streetscape rendered in a game engine could help clear that hurdle. AR applications could potentially be a huge help to everyday people and workers with things like heads up navigation aids, lots of training applications, construction workers could "see" underground utility layouts in streets, assisting inspections of structures, and more. There's a lot more to potential to AR than making Pokemon Go version 2.0, but that might be fun too.
OK... So, Netflix streams are metered on their side, right? (I think you inferred that, but didn't say it outright. I don't mean to be pedantic; I just don't want assume anything.)
Does Netflix do any similar optimizing for streaming to TVs? TV/non-mobile streaming is typically not subject to data caps or paying per amount of data, like mobile data, so the financial incentives to optimize the streams are different. Just wondering...
Also a consumer and use my home PC mainly for games. I tried not to install the last "Fall" update, but after avoiding it for about a month Windows dropped the illusion of choice and forced the install on me. The update destroyed my video frame rates. I waited for a follow-up Windows or Nvidia update, and I tried to troubleshoot the issue with everything I could find online about it (I wasn't the only one), but my patience ran out after about a week. I rolled back the update and everything was fine again.
So, yeah, this non-creator doesn't care what's in the update other than it better not fuck up what's already working. I will continue to ignore the suggested apps and Windows-sponsored social experiences. I will continue not using Edge. And Microsoft, yes, I play games; and I know you gather information from me to know that too. But, no, I do not want you to reinstall the Xbox app for the third time, and if you do I will uninstall/disable it again.
The spent part is losses. The revenue part is not profit. Comparing loss with revenue does not make any sense.
First, I never said revenue was profit and I understand the difference, but those were the data points given. We have to assume there some percentage of $7.4 Billion per year is profit (Uber won't tell us), but it won't take a very high percentage of 7.4 Billion per year to offset a $10.7 Billion loss spread over 9 years.
Second, if comparing loss with revenue doesn't make any sense, then it doesn't make any sense for the article author to make the comparison either.
Meanwhile, videogame publishers are filling their games with gambling mechanics, eventually validating WHO's classification.
Good job, guys. Good job.
I'd argue that many of the most popular games have an element of chance/gambling in the mechanics [long before the obvious random loot boxes people argue about today]. Many many great or popular games have an element of chance built into them, and much of the player skill involves strategies to exert some control, predict, or adapt to the chance elements of the game, just like a professional gambler would do. For example, many FPS games, like Counter-strike, have randomized elements and while good players have some legit "hard" skills (e.g. hand-eye coordination, speed, knowledge of levels, etc.) they also develop strategies/habits that decrease the random elements, like they burst fire to lower the weapon's cone of fire, how they move around the level, positioning, etc. Almost every MMO has some form of rare item drop mechanic, or "critical hit" mechanic. All iterations of the popular Super Mario Kart franchise randomize the items racers receive. Go back before video games, and table top D&D is at its core dice gambling, as are board games like Risk, Parcheesi, Sorry, etc. I don't think those recurring chance mechanics in games are purely accidental... there's something about it that appeals to people. So, if gambling fills a need for some people, it's should be no surprise that many video games can fill a similar need.
Slashdot Mirror
..."Solo" ...the problem is that The Last Jedi was the worst Star Wars movie ever (yes, worse than Episode I) and that pissed people off. They will watch Episode IX since they wan't to know how the story will end, but they won't bother with an "anthology" movie outside of the main storyline since they don't feel like they are missing anything important.
You may be correct, but there could be another factor... Solo is unlike the rest of the Star Wars movies because it's not about magical force-wielding Jedi/Sith. Solo's characters are more "average" people than most Star Wars movies. Rogue One is the closest to Solo in terms of Force-wielding characters and Jedi vs Sith plot lines, but Rogue One characters clearly had latent/untrained Force powers, and they fought against chief evil Sith Lord Vader. Anyway, the lack Jedi/Sith and Force powers might be hard for the masses to get into or at least hard to get into as summer action blockbuster sort of movie.
I'd rather have a nuclear battery in a pacemaker that lasts a lifetime than having to deal with surgery every 10 years to replace a conventional one, risking infection and other complications.
Right... and there there are many other technologies with relatively low-energy needs that could benefit from a very long lasting battery. Space applications (satellites, probes, etc.) or long-term monitors/sensors in remote areas, oceans, power plants, building structures, etc., or independent power sources critical parts of a larger systems (power grid infrastructure, interfaces, etc.)
...I don't think 'nostalgia' is such a bad thing. Why? Because it seems that 'games' aren't so much about 'games' anymore, they're about how much money they can leech out of your wallet..... So you get these 'classic' game packages, no cartridges required, and unlike the old hardware it just works. Plug it into your TV and play it, no huge investment of time or money required, don't need to tie up your phone or computer with it, etc.
First, I agree that nostalgia is not necessarily a bad thing. I have indulged in my nostalgia at times... no shame. However, with all due respect I think you have some cognitive dissonance here. You say new games are "about how much money they can leech out of your wallet," but you support buying a 'classic' game package [i.e. a new product] because it doesn't tie up your phone or computer, which are products you already invested money in. These are both leeching money from consumers, just in different ways. I don't see either being inherently better than the other. YRMV...
That said, when it comes to entertainment spending I'm a free market sort of person... it's your money/time to do what you want with; and a company is welcome to sell nostalgia if there's a market for it. Don't let the opinion of a rando online, like me, get in your way.
Health, sanitation, and disease prevention aren't legitimate reasons?
This statement was correct 100+ years ago; or if you currently live in a third world country without access to basic sanitation (i.e. clean bath/shower and soap).
*waves* :-)
Oh yeah... I forgot to say we have cat too (black)... and we've put spent more on home renovations than I care to state publicly.
Okay, seeing as how we're so similar, I'm going to ask you this very pointed question about today's digital music streaming infinite everything options.
You didn't ask a question... but I think I see your point anyway.... that having more options today isn't necessarily making our lives better. That it creates distractions many people would be better off without.
I'm 38, with a house, and a specific friend is similarly situated. Every few weeks, we get together for a day of "cooking-for-the-freezer". We basically look for recipes that benefit from more prep, can be done in bulk, and frozen (vacuum-packed) long-term, with a very quick, or at least very easy on-the-day effort. The idea is to be able to easily cook wonderful meals for family.
So, we do things like 20 pounds of seasoned ground lamb, ready for easy-bbq kebobs, marinated chicken thighs, flat-packed for quick thaw and instant bbq, falafel pate ready for frying, cheese blintzes that need nothing more than 20 minutes in the oven unattended, meatballs already cooked and sitting in sage broth, ready for the perfect meatball sub on-demand, that sort of thing.
Obviously, with a big 12-hour day of cooking, we put on some music. I like to simply turn on one of the random music channels on cable, and ignore it for the day. He's got six different music streaming subscriptions. So he prefers to plug his phone into my speakers, and stream whatever.
On the face of it, it's all the same to me. But in reality, every few minutes, he's changing the feed, switching songs, adjusting the volume, reconnecting, whatever.
It's the classic problem of the power to choose. When you have it, you use it. And it's just the dumbest distraction.
In my opinion.
37 here, married, house, 2 dogs, my wife and I have no desire for kids... we tend to favor cooking up big batches of soups for the freezer, or one or two large meals early in the week we can work on from the fridge. Music [or NPR] is often on when cooking. My wife usually chooses the music (more on this below) and neither of us fiddles with it or waste time other than changing a CD when it ends or skipping an unwanted track/stream. So, today's selection options aren't a distraction for us when we're together.
If left to my own devices I prefer heavy metal and have since I was ~13 years old. Could have I made "better" music choices, sure, but try telling that to a teenager and I am who am now. But, I learned long ago not to subject people around me to my music. That's why I'm happy to let my wife choose the music. I know my preferred music is polarizing and it's not important enough to me to be a barrier in my relationships with others. With rare exceptions I can usually find something to appreciate in most music.* So, like you I can just let it be the background and not my focus - not a distraction. However, there are times I am alone and want MY music and I would never willingly give up the choice digital platforms offer, the choice I wished for as a teenager. There's nothing inherently distracting in having choices either. Choice in music [and many other things] is only distracting when you let be distracting. I also suspect people easily distracted by music, like possibly your partner, would likely find something else to distract themselves with if music wasn't available.
* - I was lead trombone in my high school orchestra, and in college a DJ and manager of the college radio station, so I have a decent ear for sound and can appreciate a variety of music, despite the stereotypes about metal fans.
All kidding around aside.. most online dating is just fail, fail, fail to start with, and 'Facebook dating'?
It depends on what you are looking for... I had a lot of success meeting people... I found my current wife there, though.
Right... it depends on your expectations. Online dating can also be good dating practice too. Years ago the dates I went on via online dating services made me more comfortable being on a date, asking good questions, interacting more positively, reading subtle cues, etc. I didn't find my soul mate online, but online dating wasn't a failure either because the experience gained by online dating helped when I met my wife [the typical way] through a mutual friend.
The US already has 12 floating nuclear power plants. They are called aircraft carriers. Not to mention the sub-surface nuclear powered vessels.
^^This was a great point. You should have stopped there.
...I've never cared about music that way. I really don't care if I get the niche, or the pop, or the crazy. I go to live concerts as a part of a theatre subscription, and I see/listen to whatever they bring in -- it's a small local theatre, and all of the acts are world experts at whatever. If I like it, I buy it in the hopes that they come back. Same with live music at a restaurant. The music is so background to my life, that it just doesn't matter to me.
I get it, and arguably I am similar now. Music is background, not my focus. I go to a few concerts each year. I'm happy enough with free streaming music options and the CDs/MP3s I have that I probably would not pay for a service. Your theater subscription aside, we're probably not that different in regards to our music habits.... I just get riled up when hear what sounds like pining for the days when "free" radio ruled, because radio didn't serve me well in my youth. Even though music is not as important to me now I appreciate that digital platforms, both free and paid, provide so many more options now.
Music is pure entertainment, and has zero monetary value. Zero monetary value usually means zero money paid.
I grew up in a world with free wireless radio, and free wireless television, everywhere. I've never paid to listen to music, and I've never paid to listen to news. I ain't starting now.
You position yourself as a rebel here, but you're not. You are describing the status quo of decades past when music listening options were limited to whatever music [and commercials] the industry choose to feed people. The industry fought tooth and nail against digital music [and consumer freedom] to maintain that old stranglehold on the market and your rebellion or value judgment would hand the reins back to them. You may not have paid money for that "free" radio, but you paid by having your options limited by the record industry; you paid by rolling the dice at the record store hoping the single track you heard on the radio was worth buying a full album; you paid multiple times for the same songs as the mediums went from record to tape to CD [and maybe to digital]. I know this because I lived during those times too, but I don't want to go back. There is undeniably far more choice in music for consumers now. Niche genres can find audiences in ways they never could before. Artists have alternatives to circumvent the recording industry machine. Sometimes, but not always, the extra music choice and freedom has a cost, but music was never really free before either.
Wait until hardware advances till we can get 60FPS 8K.
That would keep pace with the TV tech cycle, and Sony also sells TVs....
Also, giving VR gaming a couple more years to mature may be good for Sony so they can be sure their new console can support whatever that market does.
It's also well-documented that the tech upgrade cycle is generally slowing down for all consumer computing devices (e.g. desktop/laptop computers, mobile phones/tablets, etc.), so if everything in the market is slowing it's silly to expect game consoles would maintain the same upgrade schedules as decades past.
I figured Facebook would go the way of AOL eventually. But not this way.
AOL suffered a long, painful, pathetic death. Looks like FaceBook will be put down pretty soon compared to AOL.
When Facebook is gone I'm sure everyone will go back to mass emailing family photos and political opinions to their families and friends.
The good ol' days.
Biggest issue for the Link was not being able to port over voice channels. I was gonna buy one, then realized after research that I couldn't access discord (kinda expected but disappointing) or any other voice channel through Steam itself.
Agreed the lack of a user-friendly voice option is a big drawback to Steam Link. I can understand Valve not wanting to deal with supporting third-party chat software, but it is odd to me they didn't at least incorporate Steam's chat system into Steam Link. Or did they? ...It's not on my radar. I don't use Steam chat (does anyone?) and I don't own a Steam Link.
Combined with the Steam controller, I could have seen playing several games from the couch.
I bought the Steam Controller for my PC (for Rocket League and platformers) but returned it after two days of fumbling with it. The touchpads are a neat concept, but I found the lack of a tactile stick or button difficult, and pressing the touchpad was awkward. The rear double triggers weren't helping me either. YRMV. I switched it for a cheaper Xbox 360 (USB) controller and have been very happy.
It really depends on the type of game you're playing. ....FPS and racing games, yeah, I can see the couch being ideal for that... I'd probably buy a console though if I liked that type of game since they are tuned for that type of game.
FWIW, there are many good single-player platformer and puzzle games on Steam that would transfer to the couch+TV really well (games like Limbo, Inside, Deadlight, Tale of Two Brothers, This War of Mine... and many others). Many of those games also available on consoles, but Steamlink is far cheaper.
But, I agree with earlier poster above that SteamLink's lack of an easily accessible chat function hurts it for many titles.
Your carbon nanotubes cord is a "theory" and the cord is only part of the space elevator problem.
The other problem is anchoring the cord to something in orbit (e.g. space station or captured asteroid) to keep it from falling back to Earth. The orbiting anchor would have to be perfectly synchronized to the earth's rotation and regularly corrected for orbit decay. The cord will also be deflected by differential air drag at various elevations, high altitude global air currents, and the occasional hurricane/typhoon. So a system will have to constantly correct the cord and anchor* to keep it straight up and taut, but not too taut, to avoid it falling down or ripping apart to create the solar system's largest flail smashing into the earth.
* - probably by careful firing of many small stabilizing rockets, which is ironic considering that avoiding rocket use is the main reason to build a space elevator in the first place.
Launch loops was already given as an alternative, but airplane-assisted space launches are probably closer... http://www.stratolaunch.com/ne...
...Wal-Mart is beginning to crush Amazon....
I have found that the e-commerce verticals absolutely destroy Amazon on price. Examples.... pet food/supplies...
There is some value in Wal-Mart's network of stores for picking up or returning items too.
I can confirm the pet food example.... At least for the dog food brand I buy, I periodically check it's price on Amazon when I need something to get the free shipping, but they can't even beat the price I pay at my local brick-and-mortar pet store.
...Instead, he emphasizes quality service, low prices, and acts (horrors!) as if customers are people and not simply cows to be milked.
The result is, if I need something, I check Amazon FIRST, and frequently last, as well.
A year ago I might agree, but Amazon has been missing the mark for me and many others lately; in particular their new Amazon Logistics is shipping items slowly, missing deliveries, and the package "tracking" system is a joke. Many Prime members are complaining and canceling because they aren't getting the promised 2-day shipping. On top of that their prices aren't always the cheapest either.
What also makes companies quake in terror are people like you who blindly to go to Amazon without bothering to look elsewhere. They can't compete, if you're not even looking at them. To be fair, Amazon did a lot of things right in the past to get that sort of customer loyalty, but they are making mistakes now and they don't deserve a pass.
Walmart's relatively new to the e-commerce game and are probably stumbling some, but even if these accusations are true, they don't seem like issues that can't be fixed. The 3rd party vendors and customers seeking returns aren't just going to go away, and Wal-mart's profits will reflect that eventually. Also only one side of this story is being told. I know it's fun to shit on Walmart, but I'm going to hold judgment for now.
As an aside, now is a good time for someone to challenge Amazon. The new Amazon Logistics shipping system takes much longer than their shipping used to and is very unreliable. Their customer service admitted they were having some issues to my wife on the phone when she reported a second missed delivery to our house. The private delivery contractors Amazon is using don't seem to know the routes and delivery locations like FedEx and UPS and they are making mistakes. And I know I'm going to sound like a complete schill, but... I bought something on Walmart.com about a month ago for the first time I can ever remember, because it was slightly cheaper than Amazon, with free shipping, so I said "what the hell" ...it was delivered in less than a week, like Amazon used to do for me.
One of the biggest difficulties Augmented Reality (AR) systems are trying to overcome is they have to predict every angle the user might view their world from, otherwise the AR overlay will just look wrong and won't be useful, but an updated pre-drawn 3D streetscape rendered in a game engine could help clear that hurdle. AR applications could potentially be a huge help to everyday people and workers with things like heads up navigation aids, lots of training applications, construction workers could "see" underground utility layouts in streets, assisting inspections of structures, and more. There's a lot more to potential to AR than making Pokemon Go version 2.0, but that might be fun too.
OK... So, Netflix streams are metered on their side, right? (I think you inferred that, but didn't say it outright. I don't mean to be pedantic; I just don't want assume anything.)
Does Netflix do any similar optimizing for streaming to TVs? TV/non-mobile streaming is typically not subject to data caps or paying per amount of data, like mobile data, so the financial incentives to optimize the streams are different. Just wondering...
Also a consumer and use my home PC mainly for games. I tried not to install the last "Fall" update, but after avoiding it for about a month Windows dropped the illusion of choice and forced the install on me. The update destroyed my video frame rates. I waited for a follow-up Windows or Nvidia update, and I tried to troubleshoot the issue with everything I could find online about it (I wasn't the only one), but my patience ran out after about a week. I rolled back the update and everything was fine again.
So, yeah, this non-creator doesn't care what's in the update other than it better not fuck up what's already working. I will continue to ignore the suggested apps and Windows-sponsored social experiences. I will continue not using Edge. And Microsoft, yes, I play games; and I know you gather information from me to know that too. But, no, I do not want you to reinstall the Xbox app for the third time, and if you do I will uninstall/disable it again.
The spent part is losses. The revenue part is not profit. Comparing loss with revenue does not make any sense.
First, I never said revenue was profit and I understand the difference, but those were the data points given. We have to assume there some percentage of $7.4 Billion per year is profit (Uber won't tell us), but it won't take a very high percentage of 7.4 Billion per year to offset a $10.7 Billion loss spread over 9 years.
Second, if comparing loss with revenue doesn't make any sense, then it doesn't make any sense for the article author to make the comparison either.
Let's strip the article summary of distracting commentary and just show the most important revenue numbers used against Uber...
...last year... Uber's...net revenue, came to $7.4 billion.... Since its founding nine years ago, Uber has burned through about $10.7 billion...
So, Uber spent $10.7 billion over 9 years and now they make $7.4 billion in net revenue every single year. Where's the problem here?
This author stuck a bunch of fluff between big numbers hoping you would just remember the big numbers and not the context between them.
Meanwhile, videogame publishers are filling their games with gambling mechanics, eventually validating WHO's classification.
Good job, guys. Good job.
I'd argue that many of the most popular games have an element of chance/gambling in the mechanics [long before the obvious random loot boxes people argue about today]. Many many great or popular games have an element of chance built into them, and much of the player skill involves strategies to exert some control, predict, or adapt to the chance elements of the game, just like a professional gambler would do. For example, many FPS games, like Counter-strike, have randomized elements and while good players have some legit "hard" skills (e.g. hand-eye coordination, speed, knowledge of levels, etc.) they also develop strategies/habits that decrease the random elements, like they burst fire to lower the weapon's cone of fire, how they move around the level, positioning, etc. Almost every MMO has some form of rare item drop mechanic, or "critical hit" mechanic. All iterations of the popular Super Mario Kart franchise randomize the items racers receive. Go back before video games, and table top D&D is at its core dice gambling, as are board games like Risk, Parcheesi, Sorry, etc. I don't think those recurring chance mechanics in games are purely accidental... there's something about it that appeals to people. So, if gambling fills a need for some people, it's should be no surprise that many video games can fill a similar need.