Only if the Sony Camera detects an XBox in the room.
Only if the Sony Camera detects an XBox in the room.
Indeed it seems that business is going to try and push employees for another 2 hours of time a day, even though the end result is even lower productivity than ever before due to the fact that people really only have about 6 hours a day in them to be productive, according to studies anyway.
So yeah, let's make commuting more pleasurable. Cars with cocktail cabinets, a games console, some music, leather wingback chairs, humidor, etc.
Because at some point the technology will work, and when it does, and when all cars are self-driving, the fears about watching the road will fade away, and car interiors will change drastically. Let's say this happens around 2040...
Of course in cities by then most people will be catching self-driving bustaxi type services because of congestion - but at least they will be nearly door-to-door.
Or maybe working from home will have actually happened seriously
This was always the endgame for Uber - drivers are costly and aren't available all the time.
Pretty much everyone knew this, I'm sure even the drivers knew this - if they didn't then more fool them.
This is why it's absolutely pointless to even get into the taxi/rideshare business now - there's a few year's left for meat drivers, and after that customers will be saved from human interaction as all the rides drive themselves, and due to not having to pay the meat aspect, the rides will be slightly cheaper - enough to be the obvious choice over the feared-rapey dodgy meat driver anyway
Yeah, I'm with you. In fact I think the game makes level progression too easy early on, setting up a false expectation of one level/day progression that suddenly turns into one level/week, then one level/month around level 30 for casual players.
The game is getting better, buddy pokemon is cute, and finally I can power up rarer pokemon that I have only seen once.
The game needs something for the winter months however. I'm thinking non-local PvP matches (which would require some form of friends system) you can do from home. Obviously first any form of PvP would be nice (I guess PvP Training for Same Team Players, and PvP Battles for Intra-Team). That will get some people back into the game.
The good thing is that I haven't spent much time on the game itself, I only play it when doing things I would have had to do anyway - walking to the train station, etc. So it enhances wasted time!
I'm level 23 and I haven't spent a penny. Nor will I ever have to, as there all the objects are available by walking around and using the Pokestops. However the game SUCKS for non-urban players due to a lack of pokestops and gyms
Just walk to the pokestops and get the balls. Pokemon frequency seems to scale in line with pokestop frequency so you don't have to run out. Spending money on the pokeball option is the stupidest thing to do out of all the items on the shop. You can even earn in-game currency by using the Gyms.
I don't feel it's unfair to have to spend a week or two levelling up once you hit higher levels. And the game is trying to discourage pidgey-farming (lucky egg mass evolutions) by making them harder to catch at higher levels.
HDR makes pictures more real, as in bright light emitting objects will finally look like bright light emitting objects. Nuclear explosions in movies will actually blind you. Etc.
HDR needs a HDR supporting TV (HDMI 2a). This appears to mean a TV with a 10-bit panel (or 12-bit panel), and the ability for individual pixels to be displayed at very high light output levels (500 - 1000 nits).
Theoretically a 1080p TV could be sold with HDR capability, but so far it's being bundled with high-end 4K TVs. I expect it will come to 1080p panels at some point.
IMO it's worth holding off on a TV purchase atm until HDR TVs meet your price point.
There are HDR TVs.
What they do is increase the max brightness level of the TV from around 300 nits to a higher level. LCDs seem to get 600 nits, OLEDs seem to get 1000 nits.
HDR movies are mastered with metadata that says what the max brightness means in terms of nits. HDR10 has 10-bits per channel, and a typical HDR10 movie is mastered with 1023=4000 nits (but 1000 and 10000 are also used). The encoding is non linear to prevent the issue of blacks being distinguishable.
Dolby have their own HDR standard, which is 12-bits per channel, and mastering in this says that channel value of 4095=10000 nits. The encoding is different from HDR10 (dual-stream - SDR with HDR metadata).
I presume in a games console that they will target 1000 nits as max channel value, because there aren't TVs yet that support more.
It is very visually different, and most reviews I read say it's more important than 4K in terms of visual improvement over 1080p.
This depends on a lot of things.
1. Dolby HDR can work over HDMI 1.4, but most TVs support HDR10 which needs HDMI 2.
2. The biggest difference in versions of HDMI is the bandwidth available, and HDR10 really means 10-bit 4K video.
3. The HDMI controller in the PS4 is programmable. It may be possible that the firmware can update it to HDMI 2 in featureset (even if it can't do 4K modes)
4. It may be that 1080p HDR10 will work as long as the PS4 HDMI 1.4 port is connected to a TV that supports HDR10 on its HDMI 2 port.
I don't see any reason why HDR10 should be limited to 4K resolutions - that may be the headline resolution but there is nothing stopping the same HDR10 bitstream working on a 1080p signal, indeed it would be kind of stupid to limit that. However stupid things do happen.
And after that date, the price difference is such that getting the PS4 Slim over the PS4 Pro is a bad purchasing decision. And you've got those two months to save up that $100.
Yeah, the cops screwed this one up. Even when the evidence in hand is a recording of events, protocol has to be followed. There should have been enough other evidence (photos of the victim, victim testimony, etc) to get something to stick too, which it looks like the cops neglected to collect.
And (not aimed at you!) why is it better for a guilty person to go free rather than even one innocent person go to jail? Because it is highly likely that a guilty person would commit a similar crime again. Which is what happened in this case. It does create more victims unfortunately, but it also removes a lot of doubt.
And if they were guilty, and they don't commit another crime - then at least they have been rehabilitated for whatever reason they chose (feeling bad, fear, etc).
As for police randomly raiding homes without warrants, if they do find incriminating evidence then fair enough; if they don't, then prosecute the police for intrusion.
Are you actually serious about this?
You would legally give the police the right to hassle whoever they wanted, go on fishing expeditions, plant evidence and then find it, and so on, just because they *may* find something?
Now, on the other hand, this video is quite different. It is a recording of events rather than a tool used in the events. In addition, what is 'siezing' a video when it could be deleted if not siezed. Seizure is surely taking AND viewing. Taking, and getting a warrant post-taking but pre-viewing, should surely be a viable situation here. There is still a judicial oversight prior to the viewing, preventing the fishing expedition. Obviously, in this case, they took it, and once they had it viewed it and didn't get any judicial oversight.
Surely taking the video, but sealing it unviewed until the warrant to view (or instruction to return it) would be adequate in this case?
It is clear that erasing the video whilst waiting for a warrant is a strong possibility, I don't see how that can be dismissed so easily by the judge.
Maybe a golf course deal...
It's cheaper to refactor roadside equipment (even installing concrete barriers for the self-guiding bus wheels) than to install a subway.
IIRC the bus has lighting underneath for road traffic.
However the bus would surely be blocking the view of the signs and lights for the cars, although as it would leave first that might not be a big problem.
Most likely at stops the elevated bus would proceed before the vehicles underneath.
Still, there are so many issues with the concept and design apart from turning when the vehicle is blocking your exit that this will likely only ever live in select cities that match the use case.
- existing straight city grids (otherwise you would new-build with trams/light-rail, which has a benefit of being able to turn corners).
- no subways (as these work and don't block the roads).
- a city government willing to ban tall vehicles from the routes they run on - i.e., these would be car-only routes, until people design low-height freight transporters to feed the city's retail and food outlets.
"Men get fatter to die earlier and escape" would be a better title.
Single men go to the gym. Married men get fat.
The evidence is clear. Sweet death is the ultimate desire for many many men, and they will do all they can to achieve this in the most enjoyable manner possible - namely overeating. They can then escape the mental torture of their relationship.
Heisengberg might have been here.