Yes, but not given publicly. This is so that shows can use the ratings as leverage in negotiating contracts with Netflix. Which is also why netflix doesn't release the data publicly. They don't want some show figuruing out that half the netflix audiance watches the same program every time it's pushed out. They might think they have an angle and try to get more money out of netflix, or more money out of one of their competitors by offering and exclusive deal. Like Downton Abbey giving exclusive rights to Amazon because they needed something to get people to watch Amazon over Hulu.

That's how you read it? I read it as if you create a robot that tries to evaluate weather or not it should kill someone based on ethics the program will never complete. You can certainly make one that can always kill what you tell it to, but not one that can choose whether or not a given human is a rebel to be shot on site, or a human that is apart of the new world order. However, I'm more likely to have it kill all humans not holding an IFF tag.

Sorry, but Quantum Fluctuations are not a null value thus the claim in the headline is false. Stop spreading this particular lie about something coming from nothing. Otherwise interesting proof I'll have to read later.

Shall I include the Middle Ages Murder rates as well? London 14th Century Murder Rate of 52 per 100k. Higher murder rate than every single war torn African country. Higher than ever Aisan Country, Higher than every country on the planet except for Honduras, and Jamaica with they're 60 per 100k. I could come up with some pretty raciest Erroneous conclusions with that too, but I'll let your mind fill them in for you.

In 1995 the Murder rate in the US was 8.2 per 100k with a population of around 260 million. In 2012 the Murder rate in the US was 4.7 per 100k with a population of around 313 million. In 1980 the rate was 10.2 with a population of 225 million. Shall I now correlate internet usage with troll activity, and erroneously conclude that internet trolling reduces the murder rate? Or should I conclude the Humans are the opposite of rats, and they become calmer in over populated situations? Also Erroneous.

I suspect BS, but I'll hear out the argument if there is actual evidence. Sliding down the resolution to 900p from 1080p would mostly save you on GPU, and Graphics memory usages. In a more detailed artilce it was stated that they picked 900p because they didn't want to fight with the differences between the XBone and PS4. The main reason the PS4 keeps getting 1080p and the XBone does not is that the memory for the graphics is so much faster. So if someone actually has the PC version and can so that "AI" is burning every processor at 100% then I'll buy their argument as plausable. Until then the story has changed from day to day, and isn't believable. If the AI has something to do with it then the AI coder has probably deadlocked the system when they use multiple cores, and has been cheating by using only one core.

That sub culture is still the sub culture buying those Intel chips, and the ones who frequent gaming web sites like gamasutra. Only idiots who think that 15 years ago people playing solitaire on the PC hardcore qualified as gamers. Games have been mainstream since the dawn of history by that definition. However, gamer subculture is the only audience for gaming magazines. You're not really a hardcore poker player is all you do is visit vegas once in a while, but if you have a regular poker night then you probably are. You'd probably have your own poker take, chips, and hand marked cards. The chump who visits vegas on his honey moon and loses the ring... not so much.

Could it have hurt to put the link to the offending article in the summery? Not a particularly offensive article, but reads like biting the hand that feeds you.

This is in particular a contradiction. If Gamers are over then why do a portion of those PC Gamer Enthusiasts continue to buy Intel's processors for a premium which happens to pay for the advertising?

I'd want to have an intellectual discussion on this, but both sides have had it and are at the point of being stupid so that's not going to happen.

Since Hawking Radiation hasn't been observed in any repeatable experiment, and the universe is too warm to tell it apart from the background radiation if black holes do emit it I'd say that the assumptions could be wrong. Since the claim is that the event horizon never forms it's claiming that those black things in the center of galaxies don't exist, or should be just above the minimum to be a black hole. I'd say this is actually a hit against Hawking Radiation, or one of the other assumption, and not a hit against Black Holes.

How does a copy of a drive image wipe itself after any number of failed attempts?

How much video are you streaming? I've found very little if any issue with 10mbps on my home line, and I find that every once in a while that I'm streaming to my living room, the basement play room, a 2DS, and 2-3 computers simultaneously. I might not be streaming 1080p to every device, Heck, 1080p is over rated. Give me 480p or 720p as long as it's 16:9. The only time I notice a significant issue is when someone logs on with their un-synced phone, and steal all the upload bandwidth sending all their photos to Google.

Because it creates competition and drives down the profit margin?

With a physical book that I've read I have a fairly good idea where I need to open it up to find something I'm looking for. With an eBook there are no pages to really catalog because they're all on the same page. Just a thought.

Isn't minimize overall damage, and minimize liability usually equal. I can't think of one where they wouldn't be off hand. Anything greater than minimized damage would be increased liability.

Test-ability and the Title of Theory. String Theory is a Mathematical Theory, and an interesting Scientific Hypothesis. You can have a Math Theory as long as your math is sound given your assumptions. You can only have a Scientific Theory if your experiments, and data can be tested. Everything String Theory predicts and is testable for is in Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It doesn't provide anything new that we can test for yet. So giving it the mantel of Scientific Theory when it hasn't yet done the work needed gives it more credit then it should have. And doing so gives legitimacy to creationist claims that evolution is "Just A Theory".