The system will support *at most* two tablet controllers. I can't imagine any games will require 2 tablet controllers.
Just about any multiplayer strategy game. Each user having a tablet would allow them to interact with the game in secret. For example, a football game would allow each player to draw their own detailed plays.
More like a cycle of life... the oil spill is eaten by the bacteria, and then the bacteria get eaten by something else, which then gets eaten by something else.
I'm wondering what the fishing boats in the Gulf are seeing, if there was a corresponding explosion of growth in populations of shrimp or such.
That's why the insurance lobby is going to get HEAVILY behind automated cars, and pushing legislation to make them required. Everyone will still be required to purchase insurance, but the incidence of traffic accidents will drop dramatically.
Everyone will want an automated car. Hell, who wouldn't want to take a nap during their work commute, or watch TV or read a book?
New technology is always expensive at first. To reduce cost, I can see car manufacturers offering a budget car that has *no* manual controls. I think that first world countries will adopt automated driving very quickly, and that by the turn of the century, manually operated cars won't exist on public roads.
The automated car can be attentive 100% of the time, whereas humans make mistakes. There probably are bugs in the software right now, but maybe none bad enough to cause an accident. Until the Google car causes an accident, you can't really judge it less safe than any human driver.
I'm also going to guess that automated cars are going to drive like grandma, observing every safety rule you ever heard about driving.
Most drivers take risks; driving 10 MPH over the speed limit, not braking enough in advance, not leaving enough distance between the car in front, running yellow lights. I imagine that automated cars offer a very boring but safe driving experience.
Think of the implications of having an automated driving system... the onboard computer is collecting and analyzing data in real time, and it will likely store that information, at least temporarily. So if a Google car is involved in a crash, a full report will be generated, detailing exactly what happened and liability will be very easy to determine in most cases. "Car A has had a faulty motion sensor on the front bumper that the driver failed to have replaced" or "Car B drove through a red light to hit Car A".
I also think that automated cars will observe all safety rules to the letter... like only driving the speed limit (or slightly below), always maintaining a safe distance behind other vehicles, stopping for yellow lights, and having a generous braking distance. Remember, Google could be held liable if the system is reckless, and they aren't going to want that when human lives are at stake.
I think that making automated, passenger-less cars legal will be a very easy decision for legislatures, and will pass quickly. Like I said, I believe automated cars will err far more on the side of caution, like the most grandmotherly of drivers.
It's the difference between introversion and extroversion, isn't it? Introverts value privacy and solitude. Extroverts value attention and community. Everyone falls somewhere on the line between extreme introversion and extreme extroversion.
I would say that MMO's starting out tend to be tougher because they have generally put all of the work into leveling, and not as much into endgame content. They don't want a lot of people sitting around at endgame, getting bored.
Expansion packs for MMO's will add some leveling up content, and dump a ton of content into the endgame experience.
If my car is autonomous, I can send it to get my wife to take her shopping, to the school to pick up the kids, run my son over to the football field, etc. My car will spend MORE time on the road as I dispatch it to take care of various tasks.
Yes, everyone wants to drive fast. But, what's the trade-off for going a little slower? Oh, that's right... HANDING OVER COMPLETE CONTROL.
If you commute in rush hour traffic, you don't care about the speed limit, because you're not going to get the chance to hit it, anyway.
What this technology will do, in fact, is encourage longer commutes. People will be able to work, nap, play games, watch TV. The interior of the car will be redesigned to accommodate the driver engaging in a range of activities while commuting.
The Digg Patriots were a small group; hardly enough to make a significant impact. There was a lot more dust kicked up over that story than there was substance.
The real problem was that you had a lot of folks who figured out early on how to game the system (MrBabyMan, et al), and while Digg admitted that v4 made Digg harder to game the system, Rose specifically said that they liked the tone and direction of Digg content and did not want to wipe out the "karma" of their top users. So, the gamers remained in control of Digg throughout.
I don't understand why MS fans think it's so compelling to have a hinge down the middle of your screen. You can't watch fullscreen movies on it, or play fullscreen games. Sure, you can fold it in half, but now it's twice as thick and still not going into your pocket.:P
Intel won the RISC vs CISC debate of the 1990's for several reasons that all had to do with business:
1) The PPC Consortium basically fell apart. IBM signed on board, and then quickly lost interest in helping out with the desktop PPC processor line. They built developed the original PPC line for the server market, and that's where all the profitability remained for them. Unfortunately, the server CPU's were unsuitable for the consumer market (and too expensive).
2) The Motorola Brain Drain. Intel faced down the PPC threat by hiring away the best and brightest engineers from Motorola. Motorola floundered. Whereas the PPC was expected to be the first to hit the Ghz range, they ended up being years behind Intel. For the longest time, Motorola's high-end PPC chip was stalled out at 533 Mhz.
3) Intel developed a blended processor. Where they could, they integrated RISC technology to achieve huge speed gains.
One other trend we are seeing is that there is more emphasis on the subscription model. A company might sell you a game for $40, and then charge you $15/month in perpetuity. It's what made World of Warcraft a multi-billion dollar franchise.
You traveled from planet to plant in your spaceship, as either a miner, a farmer, or a priest (or unofficially as a criminal, stealing and murdering everywhere you went). No star maps, every planet was randomly found and generated (I loved that the game was completely open-ended). And if you died, you did a roll to see if God would intervene and save your life; there was a 2% chance he would, and give you a huge stat boost to boot.
Empire I: World Builders was the best game I ever played on my Apple ][+.
It's a sad statement about a larger reality in society, there are always more desperate men than women. The good looking, rich, charismatic guys tend to juggle multiple women while the dumpy guys often get zilch. Meanwhile, the women are holding out for (and fighting over) Prince Charming (i.e. the good-looking, rich, charismatic guy) and all-too-often ignoring the nice but not-so-princely peasants.
I'm a reasonably attractive guy; have always gotten compliments on my looks. But, I'm just an average middle-class guy. The old rules still apply: men typically contact women first, not vice-versa. I would get the occasional email from a woman, usually someone not in the same range of attractiveness. But not much. I had to initiate almost all of my conversations.
I had heard that a decently-attractive woman would get flooded with emails. Just for shits and giggles, I decided to put this to the test one day. I took a photo of a woman from an Australian dating site -- fairly attractive. I created a profile on PoF and wrote a story of her being a struggling single mom. OMG the emails started pouring in. One guy tried to initiate a chat session within seconds of the profile going live, and kept hounding me until I blocked him. I had guys sending me cheesy pickup lines. Guys telling me their life story. Most only sent one email, but some were doggedly persistent. One guy kept trying to get my attention by bragging about how much money he had.
A few things I've learned about online dating over the years, though:
1) Don't go overboard in your profile - just the basics, really 2) Only use your absolute best pictures, from within the last few years 3) Time is of the essence -attractive women who create new profiles get burned out quickly by the sheer volume of emails they receive; you stand a better chance of getting her attention if you are among the first to email her 4) Be funny in your opening emails. Don't feel like you have to rip off a quick email. Take a few hours to think about it, try to be funny and clever but not desperate. I've had a lot of email conversations where the woman never even looked at my profile, but responded entirely because of the email I sent. 5) Try to find some common ground in her profile to put in your email message
And, I've said this before, most dating sites are scams. Match.com was busted for actually sending their employees on dates with clients, and all online dating sites are are chock-full of fake profiles generated by the staff and/or spammers who will throw a bone every now and then for the sake of realism.
I don't know about the "sending employees on dates" part, but I do know that Match.com is a spammer.
I quit Match.com once I started my current relationship; deleted my account, told them not to send me any emails, etc. I still get the occasional email from Match saying "Someone you know thought you might find this person interesting!" First of all, everyone I'm close to knows that I'm in a long-term relationship, and not looking. Second, I would look at these profiles and see that these were randomly-picked women from my area who would have some glaring disparity that would never cause me to choose them, nor would anyone who really knows me recommend them to me.
Slashdot Mirror
IMO, the controller should have been launched first as a standalone console.
The system will support *at most* two tablet controllers. I can't imagine any games will require 2 tablet controllers.
Just about any multiplayer strategy game. Each user having a tablet would allow them to interact with the game in secret. For example, a football game would allow each player to draw their own detailed plays.
More like a cycle of life... the oil spill is eaten by the bacteria, and then the bacteria get eaten by something else, which then gets eaten by something else.
I'm wondering what the fishing boats in the Gulf are seeing, if there was a corresponding explosion of growth in populations of shrimp or such.
That's why the insurance lobby is going to get HEAVILY behind automated cars, and pushing legislation to make them required. Everyone will still be required to purchase insurance, but the incidence of traffic accidents will drop dramatically.
There's also the issue of cost.
Everyone will want an automated car. Hell, who wouldn't want to take a nap during their work commute, or watch TV or read a book?
New technology is always expensive at first. To reduce cost, I can see car manufacturers offering a budget car that has *no* manual controls. I think that first world countries will adopt automated driving very quickly, and that by the turn of the century, manually operated cars won't exist on public roads.
The automated car can be attentive 100% of the time, whereas humans make mistakes. There probably are bugs in the software right now, but maybe none bad enough to cause an accident. Until the Google car causes an accident, you can't really judge it less safe than any human driver.
I'm also going to guess that automated cars are going to drive like grandma, observing every safety rule you ever heard about driving.
Most drivers take risks; driving 10 MPH over the speed limit, not braking enough in advance, not leaving enough distance between the car in front, running yellow lights. I imagine that automated cars offer a very boring but safe driving experience.
That's why the "black box" on automated cars will probably be heavily encrypted.
Think of the implications of having an automated driving system... the onboard computer is collecting and analyzing data in real time, and it will likely store that information, at least temporarily. So if a Google car is involved in a crash, a full report will be generated, detailing exactly what happened and liability will be very easy to determine in most cases. "Car A has had a faulty motion sensor on the front bumper that the driver failed to have replaced" or "Car B drove through a red light to hit Car A".
I also think that automated cars will observe all safety rules to the letter... like only driving the speed limit (or slightly below), always maintaining a safe distance behind other vehicles, stopping for yellow lights, and having a generous braking distance. Remember, Google could be held liable if the system is reckless, and they aren't going to want that when human lives are at stake.
I think that making automated, passenger-less cars legal will be a very easy decision for legislatures, and will pass quickly. Like I said, I believe automated cars will err far more on the side of caution, like the most grandmotherly of drivers.
"Evasive maneuvers, Mr. Google!"
"Aye aye, captain!"
It's the difference between introversion and extroversion, isn't it? Introverts value privacy and solitude. Extroverts value attention and community. Everyone falls somewhere on the line between extreme introversion and extreme extroversion.
I would say that MMO's starting out tend to be tougher because they have generally put all of the work into leveling, and not as much into endgame content. They don't want a lot of people sitting around at endgame, getting bored.
Expansion packs for MMO's will add some leveling up content, and dump a ton of content into the endgame experience.
Dictionary.com disagrees with your definition of game; the ability to win is not part of the definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game?s=t
Less cars on the road? Or more cars?
If my car is autonomous, I can send it to get my wife to take her shopping, to the school to pick up the kids, run my son over to the football field, etc. My car will spend MORE time on the road as I dispatch it to take care of various tasks.
Human override will only be available at first. Over time, human controls will be removed because humans will lose their driving skills from disuse.
Yes, everyone wants to drive fast. But, what's the trade-off for going a little slower? Oh, that's right... HANDING OVER COMPLETE CONTROL.
If you commute in rush hour traffic, you don't care about the speed limit, because you're not going to get the chance to hit it, anyway.
What this technology will do, in fact, is encourage longer commutes. People will be able to work, nap, play games, watch TV. The interior of the car will be redesigned to accommodate the driver engaging in a range of activities while commuting.
I say that automated cars will sell very well.
The Digg Patriots were a small group; hardly enough to make a significant impact. There was a lot more dust kicked up over that story than there was substance.
The real problem was that you had a lot of folks who figured out early on how to game the system (MrBabyMan, et al), and while Digg admitted that v4 made Digg harder to game the system, Rose specifically said that they liked the tone and direction of Digg content and did not want to wipe out the "karma" of their top users. So, the gamers remained in control of Digg throughout.
Of all these channels, the only one I really care about is Comedy Central
That's by design. Look at that channel list again; they are all tightly focused on particular demographic groups.
I don't understand why MS fans think it's so compelling to have a hinge down the middle of your screen. You can't watch fullscreen movies on it, or play fullscreen games. Sure, you can fold it in half, but now it's twice as thick and still not going into your pocket. :P
Intel won the RISC vs CISC debate of the 1990's for several reasons that all had to do with business:
1) The PPC Consortium basically fell apart. IBM signed on board, and then quickly lost interest in helping out with the desktop PPC processor line. They built developed the original PPC line for the server market, and that's where all the profitability remained for them. Unfortunately, the server CPU's were unsuitable for the consumer market (and too expensive).
2) The Motorola Brain Drain. Intel faced down the PPC threat by hiring away the best and brightest engineers from Motorola. Motorola floundered. Whereas the PPC was expected to be the first to hit the Ghz range, they ended up being years behind Intel. For the longest time, Motorola's high-end PPC chip was stalled out at 533 Mhz.
3) Intel developed a blended processor. Where they could, they integrated RISC technology to achieve huge speed gains.
So, with that many US bases surrounding them, antagonizing the US by engaging in a highly controversial nuclear weapons program helps them how?
Are they extraordinary gamers?
One other trend we are seeing is that there is more emphasis on the subscription model. A company might sell you a game for $40, and then charge you $15/month in perpetuity. It's what made World of Warcraft a multi-billion dollar franchise.
You traveled from planet to plant in your spaceship, as either a miner, a farmer, or a priest (or unofficially as a criminal, stealing and murdering everywhere you went). No star maps, every planet was randomly found and generated (I loved that the game was completely open-ended). And if you died, you did a roll to see if God would intervene and save your life; there was a 2% chance he would, and give you a huge stat boost to boot.
Empire I: World Builders was the best game I ever played on my Apple ][+.
It's a sad statement about a larger reality in society, there are always more desperate men than women. The good looking, rich, charismatic guys tend to juggle multiple women while the dumpy guys often get zilch. Meanwhile, the women are holding out for (and fighting over) Prince Charming (i.e. the good-looking, rich, charismatic guy) and all-too-often ignoring the nice but not-so-princely peasants.
I'm a reasonably attractive guy; have always gotten compliments on my looks. But, I'm just an average middle-class guy. The old rules still apply: men typically contact women first, not vice-versa. I would get the occasional email from a woman, usually someone not in the same range of attractiveness. But not much. I had to initiate almost all of my conversations.
I had heard that a decently-attractive woman would get flooded with emails. Just for shits and giggles, I decided to put this to the test one day. I took a photo of a woman from an Australian dating site -- fairly attractive. I created a profile on PoF and wrote a story of her being a struggling single mom. OMG the emails started pouring in. One guy tried to initiate a chat session within seconds of the profile going live, and kept hounding me until I blocked him. I had guys sending me cheesy pickup lines. Guys telling me their life story. Most only sent one email, but some were doggedly persistent. One guy kept trying to get my attention by bragging about how much money he had.
A few things I've learned about online dating over the years, though:
1) Don't go overboard in your profile - just the basics, really
2) Only use your absolute best pictures, from within the last few years
3) Time is of the essence -attractive women who create new profiles get burned out quickly by the sheer volume of emails they receive; you stand a better chance of getting her attention if you are among the first to email her
4) Be funny in your opening emails. Don't feel like you have to rip off a quick email. Take a few hours to think about it, try to be funny and clever but not desperate. I've had a lot of email conversations where the woman never even looked at my profile, but responded entirely because of the email I sent.
5) Try to find some common ground in her profile to put in your email message
And, I've said this before, most dating sites are scams. Match.com was busted for actually sending their employees on dates with clients, and all online dating sites are are chock-full of fake profiles generated by the staff and/or spammers who will throw a bone every now and then for the sake of realism.
I don't know about the "sending employees on dates" part, but I do know that Match.com is a spammer.
I quit Match.com once I started my current relationship; deleted my account, told them not to send me any emails, etc. I still get the occasional email from Match saying "Someone you know thought you might find this person interesting!" First of all, everyone I'm close to knows that I'm in a long-term relationship, and not looking. Second, I would look at these profiles and see that these were randomly-picked women from my area who would have some glaring disparity that would never cause me to choose them, nor would anyone who really knows me recommend them to me.