It's been what, like 50 years we've been using old tech? Nuclear is cleaner than coal barring an accident. Coal is guaranteed to kill and hurt people. With Nuclear you at least have a chance of everyone being healthy. Even if the country doesn't adopt some grand scheme of making a bunch of nuclear plants, making one here or one there would get our technology levels higher and create jobs for smart people.

A lesser known situation is if you actually create an energy surplus, food costs, logistic costs, and transportation costs get cheaper. So if we ramped our energy production up by 2-8x what we got now, people could charge their hybrid car at home for even less than they do now. I think this dream is often grouped up with a superconductor power grid idea which is unrealistic for the short term. I think for a better world, we should be aiming to create energy surpluses.

Sometimes I even have the strange thought that energy conservation ideas hurt society's growth. It would be almost better if we used more power in the short term so energy could invest in itself and provide more power at lower costs down the road. I mean it is better to conserve electricity, but I don't hear people championing the idea of creating a global energy surplus.

I don't care about a limited 2 aps at once, or touchscreen. The one thing Windows needs is the ability to fearlessly run applications. Windows should have been virus proof back since 98 when the Internet was becoming a big thing. It isn't as hard as you'd think to make an OS virus proof if that is what you're designing for.

The moment your platform becomes a fearless platform to try new software, people will try software as a hobby. The way Windows is now, before aps are catching on, no one in their right mind is going to download random .exe from the Internet. We're even wary of .png and .mp3s because of buffer overflow exploits. This should have never been the case.

Now aps won't catch on really fast because only Windows 8 does Aps. If Microsoft was smart, they would have allowed all versions of Windows back to XP use aps. That way more people would make aps. It would have caught on a lot faster. And since Microsoft probably has an "ap store", they'd have made more money even. The short term money isn't what wins you control over the Internet through which gives you the long term money gain. The key is you want more people to buy your OS over a MAC which word on the street says is harder to get viruses.

Aps could be a good thing for Microsoft's future, but they didn't do enough to have them take off with initial velocity. My guess is there's some self proclaimed genius at Microsoft,"Everyone's gonna love aps, they're going to buy new copies of windows just to get aps. If we make old versions of windows use aps, we'll just lose sales!"

Whats funny though is that people are happy to blow through money like a bad drug habit for games like "Hearthstone" or "Magic the Gathering". This is why my next game is probably going to be a CCG myself. I have a great idea for one, but I need to finish my game going up on Facebook in about a month. Throne and Crown, the game I'm working on is a version of what Gauntlet 2 would be like if it had overland exploration. Throne and Crown Interestingly enough it does cost $4.99 to play past 2 hours. I'll have the virtual goods for those who want them, but the game won't need virtual goods to be played fine. The way I look at it is my game is going to be playable and fun, but it is just the beginning. The game is going to be a long 5-10 year progression where it gets new features, more art, and more music culminating into a Kingdom Sim. Instead of asking for money on Kickstarter, people can play a playable game, and if they see the potential or just want to play it some more, they can help a new game development house out. Interestingly enough, this game is 100% revenue share among my artists and musicians, so there's no money invested, just time. I could talk more about how I did the revenue sharing, it is pretty good if anyone wants to hear.

I'd call them griefers too and is why I quit. LOL is a unique beast. Your team needs to help or you lose. So some people put pressure on each other and don't let up. I quit that game because I'd be cursed at as the first thing people said to me and all I did was pick my character in pubs. Its a shame too because the game is pretty easy and fun. There's no such thing as LOL ladder anxiety compared to SC2 for me because SC2 makes you click maybe 20x as often to get the same amount of things done.

My suggestion to Riot was to allow,"Avoid playing with this character again" and "Prefer playing with this character again" buttons. Forming a custom team is often times more work than what you get from it if people aren't responding. If there was a loose method to form a preferred team, that'd be cool. I think someone told me if there was a button "Don't play with this player again", many people would use it for skill reasons and then it'd be hard to find matches. This is why it should be avoid/prefer instead of musts.

I'm having flashbacks to multiplayer Nascar games. Since it is boring to go left all game some people change things up and go right for a lap or two.

Though... If someone makes the device to autodrive a car cheap enough, it could make for some high intensity demo derbys. Look on the plus side, don't need to hose the track down to get lower impact collisions if no one's safety is at risk.

If we wanted to solve the charging fast problem, couldn't we just make battery swapping easy in phones? You'd leave a battery on the charger and when you get home, you swap the batteries in like 5-10 seconds.

I thought I read: Of these there are 2046 winding patterns that take up to 11 movies

I'll do you one better. I'll make an encryption scheme that no one can decrypt, even myself!

Back when I was first to 1500 wins in Warcraft3 and #1 in 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 99% win rate in 3v3, I would have people be awed at me when they come into the game. They would just be happy to play against a big name in the game and express it like a kid who meets his favorite sports player or a famous person. They'd say things like,"Man, you're going to win, but its nice to even get a chance to play you." So my name had intimidation factor to it, but I earned that intimidation factor by first being actually good and having a great record. If you play Starcraft2 and you spend more than a few seconds making your screen name, you're doing it wrong :P

That said, I like this screen name more than my ol' gamer tag. If people go visit my website, they can be well on their way to eternal life, and my Bro Jesus will have cool things to say to me when we finally meet.

Where cars have the "peel out" sound in the dirt.

With 1 gb/s internet, you could have upwards of 2 million people playing FPS in the same zone. Basically with 1 gb/s Internet, you're limited by the number of people who want to play or other hardware concerns.

Not every game needs 2 million players, but once they start digitizing the real world, we could see realistic reenactments of famous wars. Another application would be bigger MMORPGS. Some say,"Who needs that many players at once." But I say games have always trended better when the game play limitations have been lifted.

If bandwith was 1 gb/s, video games would be better as there would be a great deal number of more players allowable in the game at once. AKA: Games could be better if bandwith was higher.

Don't link audio in the comments.

My idea was:

Have a MMORPG that players can host on their own server.

Everyone can host their own server.

There's no rules against hacking cuz you can't stop it anyway

Have a main server which allows people to buy virtual goods.

Allow players to make their own meshes they can sell on the main server's virtual good server, and get a cut.

Which would you want to see more: The sequel to History of the World part 2, or Spaceballs: Episode Zero?