First the prime challenge in the games you are talking about is lining up a crosshair with a pixel with a mouse and selecting fire.

If AI's had to do that they might have some difficulty. In practice the so-called AI bots already know where you are, and could keep their weapon lined up on your noggin through half the map without the need for line of sight. Tthey also get to target and fire at me without having to diddle around with a mouse or looking at the screen to see where I am.

Get a bot to actually play such a game with the same UI and world view I have (keyboard and mouse and what they can see on screen and hear on the speakers) and they tend to be quite abysmal.

Second, switch over to RTS games... and there the only way to give the AI any challenge is to stack the deck in its favor... whether its StarCraft or Supreme Commander or Wargame: Red Dragon. Or in a 4X game like Masters of Orion etc... we've yet to see an AI even really challenge a human being without giving it scripts to follow and extra resources to use.

The safest option is to let Canada transport the stuff across Canada to a Canadian port.

Where they put it in a boat and sail it down the west coast. And we all know nothing bad happens with boats.

Further, in addition to Alberta crude, the keystone pipeline expansion was ALSO going to carry crude from the Williston Basin reserves (Montana and North Dakota) south; and Canada's not going to be taking care of transporting that, either.

Now in my own opinion. I prefer the pipeline, however the maintenance of pipes is generally crap and leaks are common.

The issue of maintenance that you make is spot on. But where things get interesting is that is not a question of the pipelines or no pipelines because that's not realistic. Its pipelines or something else. And what else is actually safer than pipelines? My reading on the subject suggests pipelines are the safest option.

So as bad as the pipeline might be, everything else we might do to transport the oil is even worse. So unless we want to leave the oil in the ground (which we all know isn't likely to happen) then pipelines really make the most sense; environmental concerns and all.

I admit I am not an expert on this stuff but I've dabbled; and I think its a smaller problem than you make out. I expect the format for these things is somewhat standardized. Maybe game engine specific, or developer specific, where the files are probably structured similarly to previous games or other games, etc.

I hardly doubt a whole new game data format is invented from scratch for each title.

There are probably existing modding tools and game data extractors that will work as-is or with only a little modification to get the majority of the simple art resources (textures, artwork, sounds, text strings, etc)

Given they've been spending months looking at in-game rocks, and waiting for lunar cycles, this is hardly going to be worse.

I'd have assumed there was by now at least some method of at least reading a PS4 disk on a PC; and that they'd be able to dig at the code and game assets, even if they couldn't run it, or use modified code on the PS4 itself...

But surely they have enough to look at the games art assets already now? No?

Perhaps its because of where you live? Where I live, chip and pin is ubiquitous, and tap (e.g. "Visa PayWave") is starting to become very common.

Tap is the fastest by far.
Chip and Pin is next.
Cash is next after that.

Apparently you've never seen Visa PayWave in action.

Yes, that's a problem that only happens with cards. Nobody has ever not been able to find their cash right away. It has magic properties such that a $20 note is always in the pocket you expect it to be... while one's cards move around like ninjas.

Or if they forget to bring enough cash, and find themselves a couple bucks short, or they'd go rummaging around for exact change so as not to break a 20, or they find exact change after the cashier has already started counting them change, or they use the cashier as a change machine and start asking her to trade fives for singles or break 20s into fives... and then the cashier has to be very careful, maybe even call a manager because she's worried she's being scammed and wants to have a second set of eyes to make sure everything adds up right. Or the cashdrawer can run out of something, and your waiting for a manager to go get some more from another cashier or the safe.

I've spent LOTS of time waiting in line for people doing stupid things with cash. Moreso then cards... especially now with stuff like paywave.

Phones don't seem to be faster though; getting the phone out, signing in, finding the app, etc... takes longer than it should. I think cards aren't going anywhere for a while yet.

Good question about the study, but I'd suppose that the larger the sample you get to meet, the more likely you'd find either.

So you should check off bi-sexual? The logic being that we suppose (for the sake of argument) the female response rate might drop off a bit as a result, but you'll more then make up for it with the additional male responses increasing the gross total, thereby improving your odds of finding that special someone!

Hmmm....

Sure they have: Buy low. Then watch the stock go to zero, get delisted, and vanish off the face of the earth. You can't "sell high" if it never goes back up.

Simply put, VR headsets (displays mounted in such a way as to be placed in front of a person's eyes) have been visualized and built for decades.

Sure, but that's not what's being patented here. What's being patented here is a frame that you can slot an existing mobile device into to be used as a headset, where the headset detects the insertion and notifies the phone to switch to VR mode. That's not something that has been built for decades.

Lawnmower Man anyone?

Lawnmower Man didn't include a device like this. This is not a patent on any and all VR displays, it's a patent on a specific type of frame for mobile devices.

Yep. At that time Microsoft were still running Hotmail on FreeBSD because they were struggling to migrate it to Windows.

If the law sees it that way then you need to start selling to businesses and include small print that says "by accepting these goods you sign over all property, goods, chattels and monies under your or the accepting company's ownership, stewardship or control to us without let or hindrance from the date and time noted".

The court then to remain consistent would need to ensure that this small print is held to be equally valid ...

I presume they passed a law against driving while using a cell phone, not against cellphones accross the board?

Ok. You are right. However, its not that simple.

First: The standard for "reckless driving" is quite vague and subject to interpretation. The standard for "driving with a cellphone in hand" is much simpler.

Second: They can enforce "driving with a cellphone" even before it escalates to "reckless driving". They don't have to prove you weren't paying attention. They don't have to WAIT for you to drift over the center line a few times and almost run up on the sidewalk before they can pull you over. They can pull you as soon as they see you "driving with cellphone in hand".

Third: The new law communicates effectively and unequivocally that driving while on the phone is not allowed. Clearly that message was not being effectively transmitted by the existing reckless driving laws -- because epic proportions of otherwise perfectly reasonable people were routinely and obliviously doing stupid and dangerous things while driving on the phone.

And as it is always just a small fraction of the total time they are on the phone; its better ban it outright than to only try and catch people in the middle of heated conversations, or while they are having trouble dialing;... etc. Because by then its too late.

A law against cellphones while driving is a good thing IMO.

As it is, police can and DO pull people over for 'distracted driving' if they see them unfolding a map, reading the paper, or applying eyeshadow with the rearview mirror. If it applying-makeup while driving rose to the epidemic levels that cellular phone usage had then yes.

As for eating... I don't know. Is munching on a chocolate bar that distracting, or eating sunflower seeds, or drinking a cup-o-soup or sipping a coffee from a travel mug? Sure you shouldn't be eating a steak and potatoes with fork and knife with the plate in your lap; and side salad on the dashboard... and the police have discretion to pull people over for that. But an outright ban against all 'eating' seems an over reach to me.

Nobody expects otherwise.

locally i'd hope, and then sync'd online (owncloud in my case). Because getting on a plane or walking into the woods should not lose my access to calendar and contacts (or maps for that matter -- which is why I use a mapping app with local maps). Google maps is great for a lot of things, but too often its stranded me due to not having a fast enough data connection to operate efficiently, or in many cases has no data connection at all.

I want a system where either I have to confirm it can go onto the internet before it does, and/or where I could include specific permission in the initial query.

e.g.
Me "siri ... what movies are playing tonight"
siri : i need to go online for that ok?
Me: ok
siri : searching... The Hobbit... Into the Woods... etc

or:
Me - siri, go online and see what movies are playing tonight
siri : searching... The Hobbit... Into the Woods... etc

I also want all non-online voice processing taking place locally.
And, I want to be able to change the "wake up phrase".

I refuse to say "Ok google"... it gets under my skin that I am being compelled recite their brand name to use my phone ; let me name the phone / set the phrase / whatever. (Can cyanogenmod do this??)

I guess at least its more in your face that anything you say is recorded by Google... so maybe don't change that until we can process it locally.)

I'd also GLADLY trade a simpler natural language processor for local processing. Most commands I would speak to the phone are when driving and amount to answer call, refuse call, sms a canned message to contact... and some simple gps stuff.

I'll never ask it who won the world series in 1995; or to play the top 5 songs of 2002... so I don't need language processing capabilities for that.

Quite the opposite. And THAT was my point. Confession rate is USELESS as an indicator.

Normal sane well-adjusted people admit wrong doing all the time. It's what normal sane well-adjusted people do when they've done something wrong.

Yes, there is a risk they were coerced. But how do you access that risk? The confession rate alone doesn't tell us how many were coerced vs how many were not.

Cite? I'd like to learn more about European states cases wherein the accused can confess, supply the prosecution all the details of the crime... and then the case is thrown out; even though they are sitting in the court room with a guilty plea entered.

Now, if you are suggesting that all the prosecution has is a confession and then the defendant pleads NOT guilty, and recants the confession and THAT is all that the police have as evidence then sure I could see that getting tossed out of court... in any country.

Because in a utopia it would be 100% confession rate; even the spanish inquisition couldn't quite get 100%; a few people died before confessing. So what exactly do you think the rate should be, and why?

You need to SUPPORT your argument, not merely REPEAT the claim.

What about those with a guilty conscious? Who are tired of running, of being paranoid they'll be caught? Perhaps even the gulag would be a relief.

Besides, what percentage of people confessing to crimes ended up with a "lifetime of torture in the gulags"? Suspended sentences, time served, probation, fines, etc, etc... are all pretty common outcomes. And not all prisons are "gulags" either. And few sentences are anywhere near life.