Maybe, like me, you have an AMD-based video card(s). AMD has yet to release (non-beta) drivers that support Miracast for my video cards. It's been talked about for months on the forums. I believe Nvidia provides the support for the majority of their recent cards already.
If you are going to have a flexible screen one would think you wouldn't use glass to cover it. You would need a material that also flexes. If it flexes it isn't going to be very hard and is likely to accumulate scratches like the old-school plastic screens. Not to say the tech is useless; it just seems to have limited applications in today's standard rectangle phones. Perhaps the tech will evolve enough to inspire a new phone design. Until then, meh.
Install Plex server (free) on your server and pick up a Roku 2 for $60 and install the Plex client (also free). Works great for videos, music, and pictures. Also, since the Roku isn't a Blu-ray player, it doesn't prevent you from playing Blu-rays that you have ripped to store on your server. This won't meet your game needs, but it's a tiny, lower power device so it doesn't take up a bunch of space or give off a bunch of heat.
$150 or more? I picked up an ASUS from Newegg around 6 months ago for $35 or so. It's an internal model and has SATA connections. It works great and appears to be as high quality as my other ASUS gear (I've found their components to be very reliable). The software needed to play a Blu-Ray movie was much more expensive than the drive itself.
Exactly - another mistake in the movie. Julia Roberts is actually Sandra Bullock.
I see this comment on
Products with niche features belong in their niche. Otherwise, they increase the cost beyond what the typical user is willing to pay.
I'm sure Apple could have put a studio grade microphone in the ipad (+ midi interface). It would have been great for serious musicians and other peope in the sound industry. It also would have added a big cost for something that most people don't want.
Not at all. I just think it's important that people understand that they can be and most likely are being tracked regardless of whether they have an RFID in their vehicle. I think it's likely a losing effort to try and thwart government privacy invasion by avoiding technology. Things like license plate scanners, face recognition, drones, backdoors to hardware, backdoors to service providers, etc. make it really difficult to pratically avoid detection and tracking. It seems like it would be better to change the mindset (and legal precedent) that makes the governement think that it is okay to track us. That might be even less practical, but it's the avenue I would prefer to pursue.
It's called a license plate. With technology that allows license plates to be read by cameras, any government organization could track the movements of every vehicle everywhere in their jurisdiction. Don't think you can't be tracked because you don't have an RFID tag in your vehicle.
I pay my ISP to view the internet. I give them my money to access exactly the sites they are complaining about. If they did not give me access to those sites I would not pay them. I think most customers feel the same way. Nobody pays $100 a month for broadband access so they can send an occasional email or look at wikipedia once in a while. Verizon should be thanking sites like Netflix for creating the demand that allows to get paid by lots and lots of people like me.
Of course, if Verizon wants to pay me for adding demand to their system (thus allowing them to charge the content providers) then I suppose I might think differently. They can't collect on both ends of the transaction while adding absolutely no value in the middle. Verizon - when do I get my check for watching Netflix?
Available? Perhaps. I could probably order one online and it might be supported by ATT (the carrier I chose due to great LTE coverage in my area). I'd probably be without warranty coverage and definitely wouldn't have a local place to handle issues or exchanges. Still, I could do so. Of course, then I would end up paying the full cost of the phone while also paying rates that "include" a phone subsidy. Yes, the subsidized phone model might suck, but it's what you go with if you want solid LTE coverage in my area.
So, assuming I don't want to do that, let's look at what ATT has on sale as far as Android devices...
Galaxy S 3 (too big), Galaxy S 4 (too big), Galaxy Note (huge), Galaxy Mega (it's a tablet - not a phone), Galaxy Rugby pro (thick, bulky, and intended for a different audience)
One mini (not bad, but not out when I bought my phone), One VX (too big), Optimus G pro (too big), One (too big)
G2 (huge), Optimus G (too big)
Terrain (odd form factor)
So, as far as high end Android devices being available in all sizes - perhaps, but not readily availble to me. Why would I deal with all those issues when the iPhone (a great all-around device) is sitting right there?
That's why it's good to have competition in the market. I probably won't ever purchase another android phone because they are all far too large for my taste. This is coming from someone who used Android happily for a number of years. The last time I went in for an upgrade the iPhone 5 was the only device that felt comfortable in my hand. It's nice that we both have the chance to be happy with our devices.
That's why embedding intelligence in your codes is a bad idea. Sometimes the world changes in ways that your original intelligence scheme did not anticipate. For example, what happens if you run out of codes that begin with 3? You're suddenly left with an intelligence system that is is either no longer able to meet your needs or no longer accurate.
Completely correct, but retroreflectors are all over the road. I have retroreflective tape on my motorcycle. I have retroreflectors on my running shoes. Most modern road paint is designed to be retroreflective; same thing with street signs. I think something designed to detect and destroy retroreflective objects would be very busy in any environment near a roadway.
I like your idea and all, it just seems like there would need to be some thought put into an algorithm to weed out retroreflective items that aren't cameras. Even there, I'd be worried about shining a laser into a car with with some sort of onboard camera for legitimate telematics purposes (commercial vehicles, police cars, etc.).
It seems easiest to me to put on a balaclava, grab a laser, and shine it directly at the camera in question (assuming it can be located). Of course, I suppose it wouldn't take long for the police to put out an APB for a person wearing a balaclava and visiting road intersections.
I'm not advocating this activity - just thinking through the problem for the fun of it.
They are so happy to do this because they own companies that produce copyrighted content. This is not okay. In an effort to get broadband out to larger numbers of people Comcast has been granted monopolies, subsidies, easements, and other things in the public domain. They should not be able to use that public domain to make sure that they can distribute and protect their own content. As soon as they took handouts from the public they lost the right to be anything but a "dumb" connection. I can't understandy why the FCC allows Comcast to exist as it does today - with clear conflicts of interest between their obligation to fairly contribute to the public domain and their need to make as much money as they can from the production of copyrighted content (that they distribute on their infrastructure).
While your prose is pretty, your conclusion rests upon our acceptance of your face/body anthropomorphism of the government. The president isn't the face of a body. The president is the head of the excutive branch. The NSA, FBI, CIA, US Marshals, etc. all report (eventually) to him. He could stop most of this tomorrow. Sure, he wouldn't be able to stop it all immediately (some operations would linger on until discovered and dismantled), but he could appoint people to make sure it was all stopped within the year. He is the one person in the government who can make that call unilaterally. He has chosen not to do so. He's not powerless.
I'm sure there could be lots of conjecture about the limits of presidential power in the real world or "who is really pulling the strings," but that is what it is - conjecture.
To me, the buck stops at the head of the executive branch.