WebM has a royalty-free hardware VP9 decoder and encoder. I don't know if any SOCs are incorporating it yet but Tegra X1 has 4k VP9 support supposedly.
According to the WSJ article, it seems that Google has been willing to compromise on the main concerns that FTC staff raised, and modified some of their business practices as a result. There's nothing egregious remaining that would warrant a Federal lawsuit and that's why it was dropped. I think the EU also spent something like 4 years investigating Google and has found themselves in the same position. That's why some are calling for Google to be a regulated utility, which is completely ludicrous, but it would allow them to circumvent the process that they feel stuck in now.
I think some things are exposed through API's, like the low power always on stuff. Microsoft might be able to hook into those, but it's going to be a real challenge to meet the same level of integration, especially as Google has begun opening up GNow to third party developers.
Google Now has worked well for me after I retrained the voice model. It still gets confused sometimes if there's music in the background, but it does a pretty good job otherwise compared to how bad it was on Jellybean. I think the main issue for Cortana will be duplicating the tight integration that GNow and Siri currently have.
Qualcomm still seems to be at the forefront of cell modem design but the alternatives like Intel are probably becoming good enough at this point. They showed off some stuff at MWC: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
Low and mid-range phones are already shipping with Cortex-a53's. Even without dedicated hardware, the overhead isn't very noticeable outside synthetic benchmarks in everyday use for older upper-tier phones https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... I think this reversal was probably done to speed up the adoption of Lollipop, particularly for all of the phones shipping with a Snapdragon 400. But I really doubt that we are years away from widespread disk encryption on phones, especially with security becoming a marketing focus.
Every antibiotic that we've commercially produced has eventually triggered resistance mechanisms in the targeted bacteria. There are no exceptions to this. It's not likely to happen under lab conditions mentioned in the article, but it's certain to happen from widespread utilization in hospitals and clinics because "super bacteria" are naturally selected over many generations of exposure. This reminds me of when daptomycin was approved and first marketed in the US. It also relied on a different mechanism of action from other cell-wall antibiotics and there were similar claims of no known resistance...which was true at the time but that wasn't the case for long. It's still one of our big guns for MRSA and VRE, but treatment failure is possible.
Europe spent 4 years investigating Google's practices. What did they come up with? Not a damn thing. There was no evidence of abuse of market position, so a new law is now being created for the sole purpose of enforcing against Google. It would be very different if Google was actually disrupting other markets using their dominance in search, but that's not what's happening here.
The world-wide web is most definitely not under their jurisdiction either. Europe has no authority to censor the internet on behalf of the rest of the world.
Here's an old podcast from last year, that sums up the problem pretty well in Connecticut...sorry for the length but it's pretty interesting and still relevant: http://ctmirror.org/truth-behi...
My first 3D accelerator was a Voodoo, and shortly after that a Riva TNT, which wasn't anything special at the time. Back then, I remember there were many more consumer GPU manufacturers, and almost all of them were bringing new features to GPU's. The naming of OGL extensions reflected that. Years before everyone else, 3DFX was doing SLI, ATI had primitive hardware tessellation and the first unified shader arch, and Savage created gpu texture compression. The modern GPU wasn't invented by NVidia, but by contributions by many GPU designs.
Isn't that why a law this this should address the source, rather than the index? In your example, the original article should be updated with an addendum in the title or header, just as print news often publishes a clarifying piece. Hyperlinks to the article would immediately make it clear what the truth is. Because the Right to be Forgotten targets search engines instead, it's being used (and abused) by people who actually did something wrong and want it erased. People should be left to determine for themselves what information is relevant, not what you or I demand them to believe. It's like the old adage that respect is earned. I can't force you to respect me, but I have a lot of control about what you think about me. Maybe that's still not enough for some people, but I'll say this: nothing good has ever emerged from censorship of the truth.
Question: Does this law prevent someone from declaring a "spent conviction" on an application and an employer from asking about it or using it against the applicant? Or does it require the conviction records to be expunged from public records? Even in the US, there are laws addressing equal opportunity and employee discrimination. Even if an employer discovers a past arrest or conviction through a background, that cannot be used against the applicant to deny them a job. There are exceptions, for example a repeat child sex offender probably wouldn't get a job in a day care center, but even in that circumstance, the employer could still get dragged into court in a challenge.
You're wrong. This law isn't about slanderous claims, defamation, or copyright infringement. There have been laws that address that already. This law involves the removal of factual information--censorship of the truth. That's the key difference.
Microsoft and Yahoo are affected too, they were at the meeting. It's not an attack on Google, it's an attack on the freedom of the truth.