I don't know what Google are saying officially, but in practice Hangouts is deprecated - that is, Google are trying to push people towards alternative products - Allo, Duo, and Messages.
Which is a shame, I rather like it and like the (current) concept of it being a one stop shop for SMS messages, IMs, and transcribed voicemails.
I like Hangouts too.
The initial concerns with Hangouts were that it was tied to Google Plus, that Google Plus had that stupid real names policy, and that it was a replacement for Google Chat, which was phased out so nobody could use it any more. Once the Google Plus related issues were fixed, there wasn't really a reason to want to use Google Chat over Hangouts, so it became quite a good system.
The major issue with Hangouts is that Google doesn't want it any more, so we're being pushed to use alternatives, yet again.
OK, initially I read your argument as saying copper (or presumably Fiber) doesn't compete with coax. I'm assuming that's not what you're arguing.
That said, two companies competing is not a monopoly, but a duopoly. In theory some competition exists, even if not much.
I wouldn't argue 3G competes with FTTH because they're not comparable technologies while cable Internet, *DSL, and point-to-point WiMAX/etc are. The latter is, as you say, not popular, and I suspect there's less of it available now than there was a few years ago, largely because it was rolled out by independent ISPs who didn't have the marketing power of Comcast or at&t. But technologically, they deliver similar products, with similar bandwidths, and similar restrictions on their use.
Your comment about 3G raises an interesting question though: with 5G around the corner, and LTE already freeing mobile phone companies to loosen the shackles over mobile Internet usage, I wonder how far away we are from the major wireless companies becoming realistic alternatives to the big two.
TBH I had no idea ICQ was still even running in any form when I wrote the comment. The comment was supposed to be a joke at AOL and Google's expense (Hangouts is barely 5 years old and has been deprecated for more than a year.)
No, but I can imagine a context where someone might say things that aren't sensible. I've said it before, but we're on Slashdot right now. Most of us are software developers or otherwise work in IT at levels where our friends and family have a certain degree of awe about us. Most of us have been called "geniuses" (albeit not necessarily by our peers...)
Yet you see the most ridiculous nonsense posted here on a regular basis. And if the truth be told, while most of us think what we say is true, we're all keenly aware that a good proportion is stuff we don't have enough direct knowledge about to consider ourselves experts.
Wu's comments were made on Twitter, and that's all we know right now. If Wu was responding to a comment saying "As a possible Congresswoman, would you support a bill assisting private ventures to the moon?" and her response was "Fuck no, what about them moon rocks? All they need is a catapult and then BLAMMO! No more Earth! Do you really want Elon Musk to have that kind of power?" then, yeah, uhm, what a dumbass.
On the other hand, if it was a general discussion of colonizing the moon, and her thought was "Oh, I'm sure a war between the Moon and Earth would be devastating. Their lower gravity would make it easier for them to launch missiles at us, hell, they could probably send large rocks with much less power behind them than you'd think", then, well, that's usually a +5 Interesting comment on Slashdot, even if it is fundamentally flawed.
She's deleted the tweet. The Washington Times article is bereft of context. It was a Twitter thought. I... don't have enough to judge. I don't think anyone does. It was a dumb comment, perhaps, but we all make dumb comments. Regardless of context she has to learn that making dumb comments when running an election campaign is not a good idea.
1. You have a multimonitor set-up.
2. You don't intend to replace it for 10 years.
3. You want something powerful enough for whatever it is that's in at the moment. Right now that's VR I guess.
Source: I know people who spent that kind of money on graphics cards over 10 years ago, and are finally considering upgrading.
Me? I have a single 1080p monitor and have no problems upgrading a $100 card every 5 years. So I'm not the target market, but I don't begrudge those who are.
I'd actually love to hear some context for her comments. They're apparently outlandish, but is she really running on a political platform of Moon Rock Skepticism, or did she mention the idea during a general discussion of, say, science fiction (her husband is a science fiction writer, so this isn't as unlikely as it might sound.) If the context isn't ludicrous, I'd hope that she takes a lesson away from this, that when you start a campaign for office you need to understand you no longer have a personal life, and you have even more enemies than when you started.
If the context is as silly as it sounds, Wu needs to step down, recognize her faults, work on them, and consider running when she better understands the political process.
As someone who is more sympathetic to the social issues Wu identifies with, I'm not one way or another about Wu herself - she was pretty intensely targeted by the Gamergate crowd and she stood up for herself, but she's also not always been the most sympathetic and politically constructive person to fight bigotry, and often conformed closely enough to the stereotype of the unhinged SJW to be damaging.
I think Wu knows a lot about many subjects, but like many of us, she thinks she knows a lot about other issues that, perhaps, she's a little lacking in, in much the same way as you might trust Ben Carson to do surgery on you, but not advise you on health insurance reform.
From what I can figure out from TFS, they're giving us the buttons back, albeit in a slightly different form. That's definitely a positive thing.
The buttons were taken away because of the obsession of form over function by smartphone designers - and apparently the market agrees with them. If this is a compromise they can live with, then I'll take it.
Not sure it's necessary, British road signs are generally (with a small number of easily memorable exceptions) pictographic. For example, the sign meaning "Road works ahead" is symbolized by a man opening an umbrella.
Forgive me, but I'm not understanding this. Are you saying that competition does not exist if three companies offer broadband Internet, just because one uses FDDI or copper, one uses coax, and one uses point-to-point wireless?
From a consumer point of view, what would make someone say "I can only have coax, I couldn't possibly use FDDI or P2P WiMAX that are also being offered to me, at similar bandwidths"?
A car driver losing control and injuring a pedestrian would serve more time.
In the US, generally not. I've heard of cases where pedestrians have had some fairly grievous permanent injuries after being hit by a car while they were walking on the sidewalk, and the driver hasn't faced charges. This taxi driver, who hopped onto the sidewalk and severed the leg of a pedestrian, is still driving his cab, as an example.
I'm not sure what I think of that. On the one hand, reckless behavior causes tragedies. On the other, pretty much by definition tragedies caused by reckless, rather than deliberate, behavior are accidents - the fact they're avoidable accidents doesn't mean the perpetrators ever intended them to happen. There needs to be consequences, but destroying someone's career seems to be spreading the misery, not preventing more.
A better focus would be on creating systems that make such accidents more difficult. The same, ultimately, is true of drones.
Streep is an exception (and good for her if she can still pull in that kind of money.) Most actors don't pull in anything like that amount of money, and even those that are able to pull in six digits or, occasionally, seven, digits per movie do so usually knowing they have a shelf life, and that Hollywood will discard them when they get into their 30s. At that point, many know they'll be difficult to hire in any other professions, as they just devoted much of their lives to a single profession, and have no skills outside of that, and have fame as an added handicap.
20 million, incidentally, is dirt cheap for a modern movie (to put it into perspective, the pilot episode of the 2000 TV series Dark Angel cost that much), and the right star can be the difference between a $60-250M movie (which is more the ballpark) either making a loss, or making an outrageous profit. The ticket price, which seems to have held steady at around $10 per adult for the last 20 years now, is what the market has determined is what people will pay, so that's not going to come down if studios were to cut actors salaries. So... why complain about this, specifically? If they're the ones making the movies profitable, and if the money's there, why not let them have a cut?
They're announcing this shortly before the Model 3 goes into production, which will be a mid-budget vehicle.
(Also worth noting: the AutoPilot++ or whatever it's called, the version that's supposedly SAE 5 level that'll be released before the end of the year, isn't free. It's an extra people will have to pay for. If you assume SDC technology will reduce accidents by 66%, and if regular insurance is $1000 a year, then they need to price this at around $3,000 assuming a normal average ten year lifespan of each vehicle. IIRC that was the ball park for the price for the SDC add-on they're going for, so this is quite believable. You're not paying for the technology - that's already paid for, you're buying insurance for the lifetime of the vehicle.
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.