And let's be real, mobile phones will never eliminate other gaming markets, especially now that virtual reality is finally progressing again (Oculus Rift, Virtuix Omni, other livingroom VR technologies).
I'm really not sure. If anything the move towards VR will push the move away from PCs in the traditional sense. I don't want to be tethered to a PC to use VR, much better to have a centralised server of some kind that does the heavy lifting for appliances around the house (maybe it'll sit next to a screen/keyboard, maybe it'll sit under the TV). Games consoles and static PCs dedicated to a specific user terminal are coming to the end of their useful period.
Implying playing a console requires any skill with all these semi-automatic movements and auto-aim required to be able to play FPS with a gamepad.
Implying playing a PC requires any skill with all these mice and keyboards, huge screens, comfortable surroundings. If you want to see skill go to your local warzone or failing that paintball arena.
People started to think Gold wasn't such a good deal when the video apps launched and you had to buy a subscription to access video streaming services you were already paying for; it has gone downhill from there.
The people I know who supported the PS3 over the Xbox 360 because they didn't like that you had to 'pay for online' all played online. The PS4 is going to require people to pay to play on-line, so lets assume that the PS4 doesn't require you to pay to use Netflix etc; Anyone who wants to play online still needs to pay regardless so only people who are buying a brand new next gen games console without wanting to play online are actually better off.
I'm not a big fan of MS linking services like Netflix etc and gold accounts but pretending that Sony's offering is just oh so much better is pretty odd. My Xbox 360 is probably my last games console, and I like games consoles, because by the middle of next year (when my 360 is running out of use) I think there will be living room friendly affordable alternatives. My use case is play DVDs, Bluray would be nice, online TV/video and limited gaming.
Just because Who happens to have the regeneration plot device, which would make it possible for him to come back as a woman
It also makes it possible for 'it' to come back as a man. The point some people are making is that there is no reason not to have 'it' come back as a woman. The character has been largely asexual and could remain so. Personally I think they've selected the next doctor well but I think it'd be nice if they cast one of the many capable actresses available at some point in the future.
I think you're probably fully aware of the nonsense of your James Bond remark; largely because if you're able to use the internet you would realise that James is a man's name, a male character and human thus not able to change gender. That said, I personally would have no issue with it if they rebranded as "007: The next films not enough" and the next 007 was a woman; it'd be quite refreshing to see the bravado of James Bond portrayed by a woman and I think we're finally reaching the point where it wouldn't seem jarring.
Until Google realizes that storage expansion is a MANDATORY feature of media consumption devices (Used on planes, road trips, and many other places where Internet access is unavailable), no Nexus device is a creditable replacement for anything.
How the fuck does this get +5 insightful. iPad = No expansion, iPad mini = No expansion, Nexus 7 = No expansion yet they are all selling very well thank you and I bet sales of portable DVD players are looking pretty pathetic by comparison. They clearly are credible replacements, even if they don't fit some peoples use cases. How full of yourself do you have to be to believe that something not suiting you means it's not going to sell, especially when faced with a shit load of evidence that it already is.
Although all of that is true I don't believe it is why devices are moving away from removable storage. If it was then Google could make it use microSD and make getting to and changing it an effort. 90% of people wouldn't bother and those who cared could. The reason they don't support it is they want to move people away from storing the majority of files locally.
That's exactly like my experience with both the S2 (needs charging an irritating amount) and old Nexus 7 (needs charging every 3-4 days). I think the people who are getting frustrated are probably using it to watch more video than we do.
No matter how thin it is, no matter how fast it is, no matter how well the display can be, it is still a tablet
I think that's an over simplification but ultimately we are reaching that point in the smartphone/tablet market. The very first devices were heavy, had low res screens, couldn't run or store high quality video, had shockingly bad cameras etc. Each year the new models were better in ways that were genuinely meaningful to users.
I just upgraded from a galaxy S2 to an S4 purely because my old contract ran out. It's two years newer and other than a slightly better battery life the screen (bigger and higher res) is basically the only difference I notice. Actually to be fair the camera is better as well so I do actually take photos of things from time to time now. Ultimately all those two years have done for a normal user is removed some of the shortcomings of the older model. Now the screen is huge (for a phone) and high-res it isn't a shortcoming to improve in future.
Then you have a problem because the message was state wide not distance based. If you really think sending a text message to over a third of the country if someone goes missing in Pittsburgh (everyone in states within 800 miles) is going to do anything but lead to pissing people off and millions turning the alerts off then go for it.
It could only be seen as absurd if you completely failed to understand what he is saying. There's no point sending an SMS to a phone belonging to a guy in california if he's on holiday in France; however a guy from New York who is in California may want to know that there was a disaster warning for California. SMS are sent to phones based on their number. This system sends messages to phones in the vicinity. The difference is pretty fucking obvious;)
Disabling an important warning system that could save children seems kind of... selfish.
Only to someone who jumps to quick, incorrect, conclusions. There are thousands of things everyone could do everyday that could could save or improve others lives. We don't do the vast majority of them because the chance they will help and the time required stops it being viable. The chances of a car happening to travel 300 miles to just where I am, for me to be in a position where I see it, remember (5+ hours after the event) and actually recognise it are tiny. There would be literally dozens of things happening near by that my time would be better spent, still wasted in most cases, doing to help others instead.
If someone is going to broadcast messages to my phone that they want me to read, let alone treat as a priority, then I need to think they are. If I don't I'm going to avoid seeing as many of them as possible.
I always scan at 600dpi, the file size isn't bad in the age of 300GB laptop hard drives, and if I need to send it to someone external to the company, I can always reduce the size.
In which case it begs the question why bother using an algorithm that substitutes in the real content to save space if space isn't an option regardless of what DPI you use? Clearly space saving was a consideration for someone;)
I have to admit I'm actually really surprised by this. The idea and technology are good but I would think it fundamentally breaks a key feature of digitising a document: removing the need to keep the hard copy. The moment the digitised copy is more than an electronic representation of the physical document then the authenticity of anything in the digitised document is in doubt. Can it really be used to prove what someone read and signed for example, even if the chance of an error in any case is 1/10,000?
It's perfectly legal to use it with permission. Now we can debate just how likely it is that it's main market is for people who are only going to use it, with permission, to test security and demonstrate security risks, but it does have a legitimate legal use. Should we be able to ban products because a lot of their use will be to do something illegal? What threshold should we set? How do you observe and measure the proportions?
Ban it and someone will release a blank version with the ability to download the software instead. Ban that and someone will produce guides on how to produce one and sell the parts. Ban that and people will buy off the shelf bits and find plans online.
Then why don't taxi drivers instead do the same, forgo licensing and other fees and offer their services at the same level?
Or do the opposite and justify a price premium. The problem atm is that all the things you pay a taxi more for, vs one of these firms, apparently aren't worth the money for many, many, people. The fucked up medallion system many US cities/regions used is a truly awful way to operate.
what. so eating your own sandwich in a mcdonalds is a felony? what the fuck 'murica, what the fuck.
See what I don't understand is that this is actually real 'freedom' which apparently is what America is supposed to be all about and you seem to like. If I own some land then I should be entitled to set conditions for using it, as a free person you are entitled to choose to use my land or not given the conditions and by doing so agree to the terms.
Unless you're suggesting that 'freedom' is that you can own land but can't stop people coming onto it and doing whatever the fuck they want;)
Obviously being from virtually communist Europe we have these silly little regulations that limit the kind of things you are allowed to put into contracts. That may not be true 'freedom' but it seems to work ok.
At one point "often" might have applied.
Now it applies perhaps in 1% of the cases where regulation is preventing something.
Your post reads like you have absolutely no perspective, have chosen a side, and are completely focused on supporting that position. The idea that 99% of regulation isn't beneficial is absolute nonsense.
When I came into work today in my car I benefited from regulation of air-bags, lighting, road markings, junction positioning, emissions, brakes, vehicle road worthiness and probably dozens, if not hundreds, of others.
There are stupid regulations, just like there are stupid laws, but the exceptions should be dealt with rather than throwing the whole system out.
These guys got financial support because they were pro-NSA from 2010-2012. Nobody should be surprised that they were still pro-NSA in 2013. It's not like you can send a Congressman $50k and buy his vote. He'll take your $50k, vote his heart, and if he voted against you he'll use your money to buy an ad trumpeting how uncorrupt he is.
You make some really good points and you've backed them with detail and explanation so thank you. I am still considerably more dubious about the level of influence than you appear to be though. Look at the considerable number of firms that back both sides in elections. If the amount of support they can offer is so trivial, and buys them no benefit what-so-ever, then there really isn't any sane reason to fund both sides; but it is worryingly common. Personally that's enough for me to know that funding candidates provides value to the company.
You're absolutely right that the relationship isn't simply that defence or security firms turn candidates into pro-defence candidates; it is that they lock people into that position, help keep pro-defence candidates in place and build up support structures around them that offer considerable value instead.
When you allow a bigger government, you get corruption on a larger scale. Every. Single. Fucking. Time. Ever. In. All. Of. History.
What's so shocking here is that the corruption is so blatant. There's no attempt to hide it. It is, apparently, completely ok in America for politicians to vote based on financial support so why hide it?
There are downsides to 'big government' but to some extent strong government can control or limit corruption. It was recently a big story in the UK that a strategy advisor for the government had worked with a tobacco firm and thus might be behind the governments decision not to push for plain packaging. There was no evidence of anything improper but the possibility was a story. In the US you'd have, actually you have, tobacco firms etc funnelling large sums to your elected representatives directly to stop that kind of thing. The UK definitely isn't close to perfect but businesses appear to have considerably less influence here than in the US and we have far stronger government.
Phones first came about without numbers, you asked the operator for the person and they looked them up. Phone numbers came in because it was a technically simple solution, if a user interface that let people phone for example or some such then numbers wouldn't have reached common usage. There are plenty of things that were in common use that have died off today because we have better alternatives.
Phone numbers pretty much have died off these days. I know perhaps 15 but can instantly call ~1,000 people between work and home from my phone contacts without even needing to see the number itself. With things like Hangouts/Skype becoming more widely used phone numbers are rapidly becoming more and more like IP addresses.
And when your spouse/friend/child is in imminent mortal danger and you're not available and the gun won't fire for them?
You're not there, your kid has your gun and has ammunition? That alone has a high probability of being the greatest mortal danger they ever face. If that's your argument for not having smart gun then your case is pretty fucking weak;)
Trigger locks are a great product and something I would also heartily support if it is the right way for an individual to secure their weapon. You may be mistaking my post for an argument for people to be forced to buy smart guns which it isn't. I'm suggesting that most people discount smart guns for irrational reasons. Personally if I was looking to buy a gun and had any intention of either keeping it at home or carrying it around then I would likely choose a smart gun. Most people think they are more competent than they are (gun death stats back that up nicely) the same way that the majority of people think they are better than average drivers.
The UK handgun ban is largely irrelevant given how rare UK handgun ownership was to begin with. Even if it was then looking at how gun crime stats change immediately after a ban rather than over a longer period and in context of other events is pointless.
People won't because they'll stick to the simplified, knee-jerk, kind of logic that you do there.
If a smart gun worked 99.5% of the time when you held it and never worked if you didn't then you are trading a 1/200 chance of the gun not firing when you want it for the complete removal of it being used against you or by someone else who you didn't want to. Given that the standards smart gun manufacturers work to are actually higher than that the risk of a properly maintained smart gun failing is negligible.
The statistics are clear: gun ownership causes more deaths among the family that owns it (child deaths, gun used by attacker etc) than it prevents by protection. Unless someone is considerably more responsible, trained and competent than the average owner having a gun in your health increases risk. A smart gun could actually change that calculation, though frankly given the number of intentional family killings by owners I doubt it would make gun owning households safer on average.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really not sure. If anything the move towards VR will push the move away from PCs in the traditional sense. I don't want to be tethered to a PC to use VR, much better to have a centralised server of some kind that does the heavy lifting for appliances around the house (maybe it'll sit next to a screen/keyboard, maybe it'll sit under the TV). Games consoles and static PCs dedicated to a specific user terminal are coming to the end of their useful period.
Implying playing a PC requires any skill with all these mice and keyboards, huge screens, comfortable surroundings. If you want to see skill go to your local warzone or failing that paintball arena.
The people I know who supported the PS3 over the Xbox 360 because they didn't like that you had to 'pay for online' all played online. The PS4 is going to require people to pay to play on-line, so lets assume that the PS4 doesn't require you to pay to use Netflix etc; Anyone who wants to play online still needs to pay regardless so only people who are buying a brand new next gen games console without wanting to play online are actually better off.
I'm not a big fan of MS linking services like Netflix etc and gold accounts but pretending that Sony's offering is just oh so much better is pretty odd. My Xbox 360 is probably my last games console, and I like games consoles, because by the middle of next year (when my 360 is running out of use) I think there will be living room friendly affordable alternatives. My use case is play DVDs, Bluray would be nice, online TV/video and limited gaming.
It also makes it possible for 'it' to come back as a man. The point some people are making is that there is no reason not to have 'it' come back as a woman. The character has been largely asexual and could remain so. Personally I think they've selected the next doctor well but I think it'd be nice if they cast one of the many capable actresses available at some point in the future.
I think you're probably fully aware of the nonsense of your James Bond remark; largely because if you're able to use the internet you would realise that James is a man's name, a male character and human thus not able to change gender. That said, I personally would have no issue with it if they rebranded as "007: The next films not enough" and the next 007 was a woman; it'd be quite refreshing to see the bravado of James Bond portrayed by a woman and I think we're finally reaching the point where it wouldn't seem jarring.
How the fuck does this get +5 insightful. iPad = No expansion, iPad mini = No expansion, Nexus 7 = No expansion yet they are all selling very well thank you and I bet sales of portable DVD players are looking pretty pathetic by comparison. They clearly are credible replacements, even if they don't fit some peoples use cases. How full of yourself do you have to be to believe that something not suiting you means it's not going to sell, especially when faced with a shit load of evidence that it already is.
Although all of that is true I don't believe it is why devices are moving away from removable storage. If it was then Google could make it use microSD and make getting to and changing it an effort. 90% of people wouldn't bother and those who cared could. The reason they don't support it is they want to move people away from storing the majority of files locally.
That's exactly like my experience with both the S2 (needs charging an irritating amount) and old Nexus 7 (needs charging every 3-4 days). I think the people who are getting frustrated are probably using it to watch more video than we do.
I think that's an over simplification but ultimately we are reaching that point in the smartphone/tablet market. The very first devices were heavy, had low res screens, couldn't run or store high quality video, had shockingly bad cameras etc. Each year the new models were better in ways that were genuinely meaningful to users.
I just upgraded from a galaxy S2 to an S4 purely because my old contract ran out. It's two years newer and other than a slightly better battery life the screen (bigger and higher res) is basically the only difference I notice. Actually to be fair the camera is better as well so I do actually take photos of things from time to time now. Ultimately all those two years have done for a normal user is removed some of the shortcomings of the older model. Now the screen is huge (for a phone) and high-res it isn't a shortcoming to improve in future.
Then you have a problem because the message was state wide not distance based. If you really think sending a text message to over a third of the country if someone goes missing in Pittsburgh (everyone in states within 800 miles) is going to do anything but lead to pissing people off and millions turning the alerts off then go for it.
It could only be seen as absurd if you completely failed to understand what he is saying. There's no point sending an SMS to a phone belonging to a guy in california if he's on holiday in France; however a guy from New York who is in California may want to know that there was a disaster warning for California. SMS are sent to phones based on their number. This system sends messages to phones in the vicinity. The difference is pretty fucking obvious ;)
Only to someone who jumps to quick, incorrect, conclusions. There are thousands of things everyone could do everyday that could could save or improve others lives. We don't do the vast majority of them because the chance they will help and the time required stops it being viable. The chances of a car happening to travel 300 miles to just where I am, for me to be in a position where I see it, remember (5+ hours after the event) and actually recognise it are tiny. There would be literally dozens of things happening near by that my time would be better spent, still wasted in most cases, doing to help others instead.
If someone is going to broadcast messages to my phone that they want me to read, let alone treat as a priority, then I need to think they are. If I don't I'm going to avoid seeing as many of them as possible.
In which case it begs the question why bother using an algorithm that substitutes in the real content to save space if space isn't an option regardless of what DPI you use? Clearly space saving was a consideration for someone ;)
I have to admit I'm actually really surprised by this. The idea and technology are good but I would think it fundamentally breaks a key feature of digitising a document: removing the need to keep the hard copy. The moment the digitised copy is more than an electronic representation of the physical document then the authenticity of anything in the digitised document is in doubt. Can it really be used to prove what someone read and signed for example, even if the chance of an error in any case is 1/10,000?
It's perfectly legal to use it with permission. Now we can debate just how likely it is that it's main market is for people who are only going to use it, with permission, to test security and demonstrate security risks, but it does have a legitimate legal use. Should we be able to ban products because a lot of their use will be to do something illegal? What threshold should we set? How do you observe and measure the proportions?
Ban it and someone will release a blank version with the ability to download the software instead. Ban that and someone will produce guides on how to produce one and sell the parts. Ban that and people will buy off the shelf bits and find plans online.
And you think they are the people who are going to buy a 3d printer, search and find the templates they need and print it themselves?
Or do the opposite and justify a price premium. The problem atm is that all the things you pay a taxi more for, vs one of these firms, apparently aren't worth the money for many, many, people. The fucked up medallion system many US cities/regions used is a truly awful way to operate.
See what I don't understand is that this is actually real 'freedom' which apparently is what America is supposed to be all about and you seem to like. If I own some land then I should be entitled to set conditions for using it, as a free person you are entitled to choose to use my land or not given the conditions and by doing so agree to the terms.
;)
Unless you're suggesting that 'freedom' is that you can own land but can't stop people coming onto it and doing whatever the fuck they want
Obviously being from virtually communist Europe we have these silly little regulations that limit the kind of things you are allowed to put into contracts. That may not be true 'freedom' but it seems to work ok.
Your post reads like you have absolutely no perspective, have chosen a side, and are completely focused on supporting that position. The idea that 99% of regulation isn't beneficial is absolute nonsense.
When I came into work today in my car I benefited from regulation of air-bags, lighting, road markings, junction positioning, emissions, brakes, vehicle road worthiness and probably dozens, if not hundreds, of others.
There are stupid regulations, just like there are stupid laws, but the exceptions should be dealt with rather than throwing the whole system out.
You make some really good points and you've backed them with detail and explanation so thank you. I am still considerably more dubious about the level of influence than you appear to be though. Look at the considerable number of firms that back both sides in elections. If the amount of support they can offer is so trivial, and buys them no benefit what-so-ever, then there really isn't any sane reason to fund both sides; but it is worryingly common. Personally that's enough for me to know that funding candidates provides value to the company.
You're absolutely right that the relationship isn't simply that defence or security firms turn candidates into pro-defence candidates; it is that they lock people into that position, help keep pro-defence candidates in place and build up support structures around them that offer considerable value instead.
What's so shocking here is that the corruption is so blatant. There's no attempt to hide it. It is, apparently, completely ok in America for politicians to vote based on financial support so why hide it?
There are downsides to 'big government' but to some extent strong government can control or limit corruption. It was recently a big story in the UK that a strategy advisor for the government had worked with a tobacco firm and thus might be behind the governments decision not to push for plain packaging. There was no evidence of anything improper but the possibility was a story. In the US you'd have, actually you have, tobacco firms etc funnelling large sums to your elected representatives directly to stop that kind of thing. The UK definitely isn't close to perfect but businesses appear to have considerably less influence here than in the US and we have far stronger government.
Phones first came about without numbers, you asked the operator for the person and they looked them up. Phone numbers came in because it was a technically simple solution, if a user interface that let people phone for example or some such then numbers wouldn't have reached common usage. There are plenty of things that were in common use that have died off today because we have better alternatives.
Phone numbers pretty much have died off these days. I know perhaps 15 but can instantly call ~1,000 people between work and home from my phone contacts without even needing to see the number itself. With things like Hangouts/Skype becoming more widely used phone numbers are rapidly becoming more and more like IP addresses.
You're not there, your kid has your gun and has ammunition? That alone has a high probability of being the greatest mortal danger they ever face. If that's your argument for not having smart gun then your case is pretty fucking weak ;)
Trigger locks are a great product and something I would also heartily support if it is the right way for an individual to secure their weapon. You may be mistaking my post for an argument for people to be forced to buy smart guns which it isn't. I'm suggesting that most people discount smart guns for irrational reasons. Personally if I was looking to buy a gun and had any intention of either keeping it at home or carrying it around then I would likely choose a smart gun. Most people think they are more competent than they are (gun death stats back that up nicely) the same way that the majority of people think they are better than average drivers.
The UK handgun ban is largely irrelevant given how rare UK handgun ownership was to begin with. Even if it was then looking at how gun crime stats change immediately after a ban rather than over a longer period and in context of other events is pointless.
People won't because they'll stick to the simplified, knee-jerk, kind of logic that you do there.
If a smart gun worked 99.5% of the time when you held it and never worked if you didn't then you are trading a 1/200 chance of the gun not firing when you want it for the complete removal of it being used against you or by someone else who you didn't want to. Given that the standards smart gun manufacturers work to are actually higher than that the risk of a properly maintained smart gun failing is negligible.
The statistics are clear: gun ownership causes more deaths among the family that owns it (child deaths, gun used by attacker etc) than it prevents by protection. Unless someone is considerably more responsible, trained and competent than the average owner having a gun in your health increases risk. A smart gun could actually change that calculation, though frankly given the number of intentional family killings by owners I doubt it would make gun owning households safer on average.