By that measurement, smartphones, themselves, would not be regarded as innovative because they all used existing technology.
Agreed...Apple has absolutely nothing to fear from Microsoft. Microsoft is destroying themselves from the inside. For Apple to buy Nokia, that might cause Microsoft to wake the fuck up and start building their own phones, like Apple does.
If Apple really wants to see Microsoft fail, the best option is to let them continue down the path they are currently on.
IMO, the controller should have been launched first as a standalone console.
The system will support *at most* two tablet controllers. I can't imagine any games will require 2 tablet controllers.
Just about any multiplayer strategy game. Each user having a tablet would allow them to interact with the game in secret. For example, a football game would allow each player to draw their own detailed plays.
More like a cycle of life... the oil spill is eaten by the bacteria, and then the bacteria get eaten by something else, which then gets eaten by something else.
I'm wondering what the fishing boats in the Gulf are seeing, if there was a corresponding explosion of growth in populations of shrimp or such.
That's why the insurance lobby is going to get HEAVILY behind automated cars, and pushing legislation to make them required. Everyone will still be required to purchase insurance, but the incidence of traffic accidents will drop dramatically.
There's also the issue of cost.
Everyone will want an automated car. Hell, who wouldn't want to take a nap during their work commute, or watch TV or read a book?
New technology is always expensive at first. To reduce cost, I can see car manufacturers offering a budget car that has *no* manual controls. I think that first world countries will adopt automated driving very quickly, and that by the turn of the century, manually operated cars won't exist on public roads.
The automated car can be attentive 100% of the time, whereas humans make mistakes. There probably are bugs in the software right now, but maybe none bad enough to cause an accident. Until the Google car causes an accident, you can't really judge it less safe than any human driver.
I'm also going to guess that automated cars are going to drive like grandma, observing every safety rule you ever heard about driving.
Most drivers take risks; driving 10 MPH over the speed limit, not braking enough in advance, not leaving enough distance between the car in front, running yellow lights. I imagine that automated cars offer a very boring but safe driving experience.
That's why the "black box" on automated cars will probably be heavily encrypted.
Think of the implications of having an automated driving system... the onboard computer is collecting and analyzing data in real time, and it will likely store that information, at least temporarily. So if a Google car is involved in a crash, a full report will be generated, detailing exactly what happened and liability will be very easy to determine in most cases. "Car A has had a faulty motion sensor on the front bumper that the driver failed to have replaced" or "Car B drove through a red light to hit Car A".
I also think that automated cars will observe all safety rules to the letter... like only driving the speed limit (or slightly below), always maintaining a safe distance behind other vehicles, stopping for yellow lights, and having a generous braking distance. Remember, Google could be held liable if the system is reckless, and they aren't going to want that when human lives are at stake.
I think that making automated, passenger-less cars legal will be a very easy decision for legislatures, and will pass quickly. Like I said, I believe automated cars will err far more on the side of caution, like the most grandmotherly of drivers.
"Evasive maneuvers, Mr. Google!"
"Aye aye, captain!"
It's the difference between introversion and extroversion, isn't it? Introverts value privacy and solitude. Extroverts value attention and community. Everyone falls somewhere on the line between extreme introversion and extreme extroversion.
I would say that MMO's starting out tend to be tougher because they have generally put all of the work into leveling, and not as much into endgame content. They don't want a lot of people sitting around at endgame, getting bored.
Expansion packs for MMO's will add some leveling up content, and dump a ton of content into the endgame experience.
Dictionary.com disagrees with your definition of game; the ability to win is not part of the definition.
Less cars on the road? Or more cars?
If my car is autonomous, I can send it to get my wife to take her shopping, to the school to pick up the kids, run my son over to the football field, etc. My car will spend MORE time on the road as I dispatch it to take care of various tasks.