Go back and watch the original series. The quasi-religions stuff was pulled right from ToS with the people of light. They're effectively angels just as head-Baltar and head-6.
Who gets to decide what qualifies as "fake news" vs "real news"? Thus far the bulk of the stories surrounding the subject are largely just the left-leaning mainstream media outlets being butthurt over Trump's win and Bannon giving Breitbart a huge heaping of credibility. This move by the left to censor various news outlets is largely just a response to them getting their comeuppance for their hubris.
In the end let's call this #fakenews trend what it is: an attack on conservative and right-leaning media outlets not already in the fold of what constitutes the "mainstream media". Even if you don't take a news/media company seriously, that doesn't for a second think they should be excluded from the marketplace of ideas. That includes those on the fringe like Infowars, Hell, even The Inquirer has broken some very real and legitimately big stories over the years.
I have plenty of things I could complain about with Trump too, but with all the media bullshit there is no way my complaint would ever be viewed as valid. Telling a crowd that maybe they can protect their 2nd amendment rights was turned into "Trump claimed Kill Hillary", and Trump satirically saying "maybe Russia can release those emails she deleted" became "Trump claimed he wanted Russia to hack America", and the Russian influence in the DNC and Clinton foundation are ignored, but "Trump loves Putin".
Don't forget the new instance of the media shilling for Hillary with the Trump PTSD/Veteran thing where Trump said troops see bad shit in war and sometimes can't handle the stress and trauma of it, which he implied can be a factor in the far too high suicide rates our veterans have, and thus he suggested they need our help and support. The media immediately turned around and had the gall to frame that as "Trump calls veterans weak".
Exactly. If anything this might encourage content producers to embed 3rd party advertisements into their videos thereby doing an end-run around Google's policy. Granted this probably violates their Terms of Service, or maybe it doesn't. I don't know. But if it happens it'd just go to show that advertisers are willing to make it happen and Google would lose out two ways: costs from hosting and lost ad revenue they could have been getting by said advertiser.
Google going full-retard with this SJW nonsense means a 3rd party free-speech solution is ripe for the making.
This couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact school curriculum and testing standards were restructured in the late 90s to cater to girls' strengths. Nope, not at all.
If Google really wants to compete in the VR realm they've got to step up their game with something that rivals the Hololens. If someone can combine that with the RIFT they're going to be YUGE in the VR/AR game.
Meanwhile Twitter's stock is in freefall. I don't understand how this is going to make shareholders happy taking on a huge fiscal burden like this.
Someone must have watched the movie Allegiant and thought to themselves "Hey, that's a good idea! Let's make that." Drones that can be tied to an operator and feed visual information back to them from around corners or watch their back INSIDE the same structure would be a huge improvement in situational awareness.
Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.