What utter bollocks nonsense. The Scottish and Welsh were transported in no greater degree than the English.
Scotland has low population because the weather is shit and Wales has low population because the language is shit.
Or maybe they both have a high proportion of steep hills that in historical times allowed greater defense against (e.g.) Viking, Roman and Norman invaders and so never got populated to the same degree in the first place.
I don't actually know.
You do know I was actually educated in a former colony
I didn't know that either, and still don't. You aren't exactly providing any evidence.
Not if the game is being run on a server to which you're connected and you're sending input data to the server and receiving rendered game footage in return.
Most people have more lag between the video output and the screen generating photons than you get sending a signal across the country.
I looked at the site you linked. Cheap shit monitors from Acer have input lag at the 9-11ms level. That's lower latency than pinging the ISP gateway my cable modem connects to.
Sure, that includes the wifi latency - but so would streaming. I'm really not seeing any wins here.
Because it will have better hardware than you do, meaning you should get better graphics than you would on your own hardware.
I don't get video encoding artefacts on my hardware. I don't get stuttering graphics due to packet loss between the video card and the monitor.
you won't have to download and update the game, it will be instantly available, just about always
I use less bandwidth downloading the game than I would streaming it.
But the real reason people are pushing game streaming has nothing to do with the players, it's to provide the publishers with perfect DRM. No beating the release date, the servers won't start until the game is out. No more pirating the game - it's only on the servers and can't be played offline
While some game companies will be drooling at the idea they'd need to remove entirely the existing games market to achieve this. Release a game on Stadia, PC and other consoles and you don't get those benefits.
It will also likely be a subscription service: no more paying for the game once and that's the end of the revenue stream, instead it will (likely) be a monthly fee.
Metaboli charged a monthly fee and gave value for it. It also gave me a chance to try many games that I've subsequently bought on Steam (or bought the sequels). So that's not necessarily a poor outcome for gamers.
another monetization stream: don't want to spend hours grinding? Open your wallet.
Sadly too many games are already there. They didn't need streaming to impose grind mechanics.
Is this overall a positive for players?
I'm going to say yes, because more choice is always better. I wouldn't however recommend that anybody actually buys this, or games through it - as with so many other people posting, I don't think Google will keep this product active.
Successful man has a mistress. Lets check the surprise-o-meter on that one:
Ding. Ding. Ding. Squub.
Nope, no surprise at all.
Come back tomorrow for our in-depth review of 'Who is the Father?' a film exploring paternity fraud.
It's hard to take Amazon seriously.
Tell their competitors that, because they're taking Amazon very seriously. Don't bother to tell the customers, they've already made their views very clear.
Self diagnosed Asperger's, or at least a thinly veiled allusion to being on the spectrum. Strike 2: feigning ASD for being an asshole.
I'm not going to dismantle your idiocy line by line but instead ask you to stop bullying me because of my disability.
If you don't think I have Aspergers then tell the fucking NHS as they're the ones that diagnosed me. If you think I'm being an 'asshole' then check some of my other posts, this was me being nice.
I'm not going to be nice to you. You're just a cunt.
While your points are all accurate, they're also all irrelevant.
Differentiating between design and utility patents does not change that the patent system is broken, and the outcomes in Apple's patent cases highlight it in a painful way.
Sure, the $1bn is down to a mere $300m. Only 8 times the amount award for actual innovative patents. Sorry, not accepting that defence.
Lights in metro areas are almost always timed so you make them *if you're going the speed limit*.
That's bullshit. I can be driving at the speed limit and hit three red lights in a row.
I'm not sure what the fuck that has to do with the utter lack of warning they're going to turn green again.
If you haven't learned how to anticipate traffic by now, please for everyone else's safety, stop driving and call Uber.
Hello? Earth to fuckwit? Come in dildo brain. Anticipating traffic has nothing to do with my point so stop wasting my fucking time with your irrelevant fucking idiocy.
When was the last time Bluetooth was enabled and paired with the car?
Every time I switch on the ignition, why? What the fuck does that have to do with shit? My phone could be in my pocket, in my bag or in my fucking house and it'll pair with the car.
Or it could be in my hand, and I could be tapping away like a teenage girl.
Then fix the fucking lights to give a warning that it's going to turn green.
Driving in the US is a fucking nightmare. Either you hit a stop sign every 80 yards or you reach a red light that suddenly goes green with no warning leaving some fuckwit behind you honking their horn because you don't have the reactions of a 20 year old fighter pilot.
You can be as good, as fast, as superior to your peers be as you want. If you aren't lucky, this leads to nothing (and even the fact that you are good and fast is mainly luck).
I find the whole premise flawed and reject the conclusions of the article.
I'm intelligent. Your reasoning is that this is luck, and any success derived from my intelligence is thus inherently lucky.
But I was at university with thousands of intelligent people. I've outperformed many of them in the workplace, and some of them have outperformed me. Is that luck, or is that other factors coming into play?
The same background that gave me high intelligence also gave me crippling social interaction difficulties, physical clumsiness and the sort of looks that make ladies avoid eye contact. That's luck too, by your measures, albeit a different sort. Yet I've been successful nonetheless.
I know what I've done to achieve that success. I also know that most people achieving similar success to me also bring a range of skills and motivations with them, that are intrinsically linked to who they are and not what they are. They have merit, not privilege.
At a population level meritocracies reward people that have merit and channels others elsewhere. So do other mechanisms like nepotism. Luck is a factor, but it's the factor that makes Bill Gates a billionaire and his peers mere millionaires; his peers aren't exactly a fucking failure in life.
Stop looking at the outliers, look at the population as a whole, and meritocracy does exist and does work.
. But if you believe that somehow, you earned your luck (e.g. you got it because of your merits), you are turning selfish, uncritical against yourself and discriminatory to others.
The most successful people I know are highly self critical. They seek to understand themselves, address their weaknesses and improve. That's not being selfish and it sure as fuck isn't uncritical towards themselves.
Discrimination based on skills, capability and proven ability to achieve outcomes isn't discrimination. It's common fucking sense. Of course, common sense also suggests finding people with potential, and helping them achieve that potential, but I'll leave you with a thought: It's potential merit you're looking for, as nothing else justifies your investment.
You were lucky to live in a place where there were nicer neighborhoods. And where the people in those neighborhoods jsut through out 386's in the trash.
He was lucky to live somewhere the teachers taught people how to spell.
What about the people who don't have nicer neighborhoods. Or who live in places where a computer of any kind would NEVER be thrown away.
Then they pillage the burned out cars for parts they can use to build their own, and forge a career as an automotive engineer.
An elective C++ class is a luxury that most schools don't have.
Including, effectively, his. What's your point here?
So you got lucky and got the benefit of the same schmoozing the upper class folks do.
Yeah. So lucky for him that he went to an event at which he would meet people that would fortunately be looking to employ people with the skills he'd so jammily acquired.
You're not even pretending to argue in good faith, you're just pushing a broken ideology.
You made it, yes, but what about the people left behind
Success is a primarily a function of motivation. The extent of that success is primarily a function of capability. Intelligent skilled people will achieve fuck all if they don't try. Stupid clumsy people are going to struggle even if they work very hard.
Most people find a balance according to their abilities. My cleaner is a happy person because she runs her own cleaning business that supports her family, but many people - especially in America - would deride her for having a menial low paid job.
What about the people with MORE disadvantages due to race/ethnicity.
They don't exist. Stop being a racist piece of shit and blaming someone's race for their life outcomes. There are plenty of poor white, black and every other fucking colour people in America and the last two US presidents haven't exactly shared a complexion.
Well, Trump's counterpart in the UK, the guy that gives out the jobs/investment in The Apprentice here, the self-made billionaire, is a chap called Alan.
Alan was born in Hackney, a shithole in London and raised in a council flat - for you Americans that's social housing.
Could Alan become the UK's Prime Minister? Not now, due to age, but had he chosen to go that route, quite possibly. He's been offered jobs in Government multiple times, despite never even running for parliament, and was given a life peerage.
But I guess you have a point. The US doesn't have the same level of social mobility that the UK enjoys.
If you're going to fine a behavior, then you need to exactly define what behavior will cause the fine.
They do. "Your current behaviour will lead to a fine."
either you need to state exactly under what situations and for how long you can collect personal info, or you need to prohibit the practice (and credit card payments) entirely. You can't just say "don't be evil" and expect companies to be able to comply.
This is an antitrust case and not a personal data case.
In both situations nonetheless the law is simple and can be paraphrased as "Don't abuse a monopoly position" and "Don't fuck over consumers" respectively.
which makes it extremely difficult for companies to come into and remain in compliance with EU anti-trust laws
Bullshit. Millions of companies across the EU are successfully complying with those laws. Maybe Google should prioritise compliance with the law ahead of corporate growth and profits.
Slashdot Mirror
What utter bollocks nonsense. The Scottish and Welsh were transported in no greater degree than the English.
Scotland has low population because the weather is shit and Wales has low population because the language is shit.
Or maybe they both have a high proportion of steep hills that in historical times allowed greater defense against (e.g.) Viking, Roman and Norman invaders and so never got populated to the same degree in the first place.
I don't actually know.
You do know I was actually educated in a former colony
I didn't know that either, and still don't. You aren't exactly providing any evidence.
In Britain, the total fertility rate was 1.76 children per woman
Look deeper and that changes significantly according to demographic. But you're not allowed to explore and discuss that.
There's a far simpler approach to population control that disadvantages nobody: Reduce net immigration.
It says nothing nice about you that your immediate thought was instead killing and sterilising people.
Erm. Sean Connery is (or at least was) a citizen of the UK.
You do realise Scotland is part of the UK?
Not if the game is being run on a server to which you're connected and you're sending input data to the server and receiving rendered game footage in return.
Then you're streaming the graphics and sound.
Most people have more lag between the video output and the screen generating photons than you get sending a signal across the country.
I looked at the site you linked. Cheap shit monitors from Acer have input lag at the 9-11ms level. That's lower latency than pinging the ISP gateway my cable modem connects to.
Sure, that includes the wifi latency - but so would streaming. I'm really not seeing any wins here.
Because it will have better hardware than you do, meaning you should get better graphics than you would on your own hardware.
I don't get video encoding artefacts on my hardware. I don't get stuttering graphics due to packet loss between the video card and the monitor.
you won't have to download and update the game, it will be instantly available, just about always
I use less bandwidth downloading the game than I would streaming it.
But the real reason people are pushing game streaming has nothing to do with the players, it's to provide the publishers with perfect DRM. No beating the release date, the servers won't start until the game is out. No more pirating the game - it's only on the servers and can't be played offline
While some game companies will be drooling at the idea they'd need to remove entirely the existing games market to achieve this. Release a game on Stadia, PC and other consoles and you don't get those benefits.
It will also likely be a subscription service: no more paying for the game once and that's the end of the revenue stream, instead it will (likely) be a monthly fee.
Metaboli charged a monthly fee and gave value for it. It also gave me a chance to try many games that I've subsequently bought on Steam (or bought the sequels). So that's not necessarily a poor outcome for gamers.
another monetization stream: don't want to spend hours grinding? Open your wallet.
Sadly too many games are already there. They didn't need streaming to impose grind mechanics.
Is this overall a positive for players?
I'm going to say yes, because more choice is always better. I wouldn't however recommend that anybody actually buys this, or games through it - as with so many other people posting, I don't think Google will keep this product active.
What makes you think there is lag?
Physics.
this service is a way to experience high-end graphics
Is it fuck. It'll be 4K with all the details turned down, especially if it's at 60fps.
none of the hardware pains that comes with owning and maintaining a gaming PC
Lets see. Go online, buy PC. Plug in keyboard, monitor, mouse. Install Steam. Play games.
Yep, seriously fucking painful that. Ouch.
If Google is smart, they would offer games that are PC only and not on consoles
Indeed, because turn based strategy games and visual novels are about all you'll be able to play with the latency involved.
Yeah, I was thinking that.
I had real time ray tracing on my Atari ST. Frame rates weren't great but you did usually get over one a week.
Successful man has a mistress. Lets check the surprise-o-meter on that one:
Ding. Ding. Ding. Squub.
Nope, no surprise at all.
Come back tomorrow for our in-depth review of 'Who is the Father?' a film exploring paternity fraud.
It's hard to take Amazon seriously.
Tell their competitors that, because they're taking Amazon very seriously. Don't bother to tell the customers, they've already made their views very clear.
Self diagnosed Asperger's, or at least a thinly veiled allusion to being on the spectrum. Strike 2: feigning ASD for being an asshole.
I'm not going to dismantle your idiocy line by line but instead ask you to stop bullying me because of my disability.
If you don't think I have Aspergers then tell the fucking NHS as they're the ones that diagnosed me. If you think I'm being an 'asshole' then check some of my other posts, this was me being nice.
I'm not going to be nice to you. You're just a cunt.
While your points are all accurate, they're also all irrelevant.
Differentiating between design and utility patents does not change that the patent system is broken, and the outcomes in Apple's patent cases highlight it in a painful way.
Sure, the $1bn is down to a mere $300m. Only 8 times the amount award for actual innovative patents. Sorry, not accepting that defence.
Lights in metro areas are almost always timed so you make them *if you're going the speed limit*.
That's bullshit. I can be driving at the speed limit and hit three red lights in a row.
I'm not sure what the fuck that has to do with the utter lack of warning they're going to turn green again.
If you haven't learned how to anticipate traffic by now, please for everyone else's safety, stop driving and call Uber.
Hello? Earth to fuckwit? Come in dildo brain. Anticipating traffic has nothing to do with my point so stop wasting my fucking time with your irrelevant fucking idiocy.
No, he was suggesting targeting the criminals.
What if you're black and he hits you with his car? Do you want to tack on "hate crime" too?
Sadly a lot of people do.
Oh dear. Did someone's dashcam catch you being naughty?
Hmm. I used my phone as a satnav in California and didn't know about the windshield mount law.
Good job I just dropped it into the drinks holder, and looked down when I needed to check directions.
When was the last time Bluetooth was enabled and paired with the car?
Every time I switch on the ignition, why? What the fuck does that have to do with shit? My phone could be in my pocket, in my bag or in my fucking house and it'll pair with the car.
Or it could be in my hand, and I could be tapping away like a teenage girl.
When was the last time speech-to-text was used?
My car doesn't log that.
There's little on the road more dangerous than a mother with kids in the back.
The only reason you don't hear about it more is because they're usually too slow to have fatal crashes.
While I think it should be a fine for texting at a red light and stopped, it shouldn't be as big a fine or points on a license.
I don't understand why it's so fucking hard to just put the phone in your pocket and take it back out when you reach your destination.
At a red light? So fucking what. Not looking at your phone isn't exactly hard.
Then fix the fucking lights to give a warning that it's going to turn green.
Driving in the US is a fucking nightmare. Either you hit a stop sign every 80 yards or you reach a red light that suddenly goes green with no warning leaving some fuckwit behind you honking their horn because you don't have the reactions of a 20 year old fighter pilot.
You can be as good, as fast, as superior to your peers be as you want. If you aren't lucky, this leads to nothing (and even the fact that you are good and fast is mainly luck).
I find the whole premise flawed and reject the conclusions of the article.
I'm intelligent. Your reasoning is that this is luck, and any success derived from my intelligence is thus inherently lucky.
But I was at university with thousands of intelligent people. I've outperformed many of them in the workplace, and some of them have outperformed me. Is that luck, or is that other factors coming into play?
The same background that gave me high intelligence also gave me crippling social interaction difficulties, physical clumsiness and the sort of looks that make ladies avoid eye contact. That's luck too, by your measures, albeit a different sort. Yet I've been successful nonetheless.
I know what I've done to achieve that success. I also know that most people achieving similar success to me also bring a range of skills and motivations with them, that are intrinsically linked to who they are and not what they are. They have merit, not privilege.
At a population level meritocracies reward people that have merit and channels others elsewhere. So do other mechanisms like nepotism. Luck is a factor, but it's the factor that makes Bill Gates a billionaire and his peers mere millionaires; his peers aren't exactly a fucking failure in life.
Stop looking at the outliers, look at the population as a whole, and meritocracy does exist and does work.
. But if you believe that somehow, you earned your luck (e.g. you got it because of your merits), you are turning selfish, uncritical against yourself and discriminatory to others.
The most successful people I know are highly self critical. They seek to understand themselves, address their weaknesses and improve. That's not being selfish and it sure as fuck isn't uncritical towards themselves.
Discrimination based on skills, capability and proven ability to achieve outcomes isn't discrimination. It's common fucking sense. Of course, common sense also suggests finding people with potential, and helping them achieve that potential, but I'll leave you with a thought: It's potential merit you're looking for, as nothing else justifies your investment.
You were lucky to live in a place where there were nicer neighborhoods. And where the people in those neighborhoods jsut through out 386's in the trash.
He was lucky to live somewhere the teachers taught people how to spell.
What about the people who don't have nicer neighborhoods. Or who live in places where a computer of any kind would NEVER be thrown away.
Then they pillage the burned out cars for parts they can use to build their own, and forge a career as an automotive engineer.
An elective C++ class is a luxury that most schools don't have.
Including, effectively, his. What's your point here?
So you got lucky and got the benefit of the same schmoozing the upper class folks do.
Yeah. So lucky for him that he went to an event at which he would meet people that would fortunately be looking to employ people with the skills he'd so jammily acquired.
You're not even pretending to argue in good faith, you're just pushing a broken ideology.
You made it, yes, but what about the people left behind
Success is a primarily a function of motivation. The extent of that success is primarily a function of capability. Intelligent skilled people will achieve fuck all if they don't try. Stupid clumsy people are going to struggle even if they work very hard.
Most people find a balance according to their abilities. My cleaner is a happy person because she runs her own cleaning business that supports her family, but many people - especially in America - would deride her for having a menial low paid job.
What about the people with MORE disadvantages due to race/ethnicity.
They don't exist. Stop being a racist piece of shit and blaming someone's race for their life outcomes. There are plenty of poor white, black and every other fucking colour people in America and the last two US presidents haven't exactly shared a complexion.
Well, Trump's counterpart in the UK, the guy that gives out the jobs/investment in The Apprentice here, the self-made billionaire, is a chap called Alan.
Alan was born in Hackney, a shithole in London and raised in a council flat - for you Americans that's social housing.
Could Alan become the UK's Prime Minister? Not now, due to age, but had he chosen to go that route, quite possibly. He's been offered jobs in Government multiple times, despite never even running for parliament, and was given a life peerage.
But I guess you have a point. The US doesn't have the same level of social mobility that the UK enjoys.
If you're going to fine a behavior, then you need to exactly define what behavior will cause the fine.
They do. "Your current behaviour will lead to a fine."
either you need to state exactly under what situations and for how long you can collect personal info, or you need to prohibit the practice (and credit card payments) entirely. You can't just say "don't be evil" and expect companies to be able to comply.
This is an antitrust case and not a personal data case.
In both situations nonetheless the law is simple and can be paraphrased as "Don't abuse a monopoly position" and "Don't fuck over consumers" respectively.
which makes it extremely difficult for companies to come into and remain in compliance with EU anti-trust laws
Bullshit. Millions of companies across the EU are successfully complying with those laws. Maybe Google should prioritise compliance with the law ahead of corporate growth and profits.