Most people keep it short, most people keep a normal conversation volume and most of those who don't will take a hint
You're kidding, right? Most people blab on endlessly at a louder than normal volume and remain oblivious to social cues.
It's usually a drunk person.
Huh? They couldn't do that in the terminal?
We need to make it a social norm to punch people in the face if they pull a phone out on an aircraft.
Everyone has their phone out on planes, where have you been?
>each cell phone would ping and try to connect to dosens of towers at once vs just a couple when used on land, with this hogging 'blob' traveling rapidly with the plane
You are just repeating what you read somewhere. It isn't true.
The reality is that the tech industry has reached a dead end with the death of Moore's Law.
Is the problem really processing power, though? For a system like this, it seems like there are other problems bound to creep up:
* AFAIK, we still don't have good enough AI to figure out a spacial 3D world from visual input. I know it's still being worked on and there's been progress, but being able to place objects in the real world in this kind of augmented reality requires that the computer can figure out the layout of 3D objects within the real world.
* Even if you can render the graphics and place them appropriately in the world, there's still the problem of designing the UI. You need to create both the visual look of the interface, and figure out which gestures to use for different controls. The interface (input and feedback) needs to be easy and intuitive and provide clear feedback to user interaction.
* You also need to make the gestures such that they're read by the computer reliably-- that is, if I'm supposed to do a specific hand motion to activate a feature, the hand motion needs to be something that the computer will recognize almost every time it is performed, it needs to be distinct enough from other control gestures and natural gestures. Basically, people need to be able to control these systems without constantly activating various controls by accident.
These are fairly difficult problems for computers to figure out, and as far as I know, they're not really a problem of insufficient computing power. That is, as far as I know, it's not like we've developed code that can do these things and a UI that works well, but we need a computer 5x as powerful to run it in real-time. The problem is that we just don't have the design/code to do it.
Without Silicon Valley, California would still have Hollywood, which adds a lot to the state's economy.
Silicon Valley is a lot bigger. There's a reason I picked that instead of the LA area.
Bright future, if goosestepping whilst clutching a bible , is your thing.
Remember, that's the TDS talking. Obama was lying just as shamelessly in the 2008 election as Trump (though perhaps not quite as poorly thought out), yet we didn't turn into goosestepping left-oriented fascists while clutching a copy of Dreams of my Father. I think we should care about real dangers rather than the imaginary ones.
And California would be sucking pretty badly without Silicon Valley too.
Without Silicon Valley, California would still have Hollywood, which adds a lot to the state's economy. California would look pretty bad if you took out San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their surrounding areas, but most states would look pretty bad if you took away 75% of their population.
I agree, though even with the Theresa May et. al. view of accepting the referendum results there are problems they're glossing over - Leave only won by 1.8%, but it's not clear that they can show all 51.8% prioritise immigration as their reasons for leaving, when prominent Leavers like Daniel Hannan say immigration wasn't the reason he wanted to leave I think it's entirely dishonest to make the case that immigration reform has to become before all else, even if we leave there's no evidence that a majority support leaving and screwing ourselves based primarily on immigration changes.
But this is why parliamentary scrutiny is of fundamental importance, to challenge the idea that a vote to Leave in the referendum is a vote for Theresa May's cabinet to be the sole decider of what shape that takes even if that completely defies the democratic will of the populace.
Even if you ran the referendum again, and even if Leave won again, which I suspect they wouldn't, I do not for one second believe you'd ever get a majority supporting exiting the European Economic Area even if we leave the EU, and yet that's exactly what they're proposing despite there being not even remotely near a majority for it. A substantial number of even the hardest Brexit voters still support the idea of remaining in the common market.
Thus May's government simply cannot keep claiming they have a democratic mandate, they were given a mandate for one thing and one thing only - leaving the EU, they have no mandate to decide anything else beyond that regarding immigration, access to markets and so on and so forth. Democracy is also not a one time thing, so I also absolutely agree that any package should be put to the people in a second referendum with the option of rejecting it and staying in the EU - democracy is about giving people choice to decide, and people's views change. It's not democracy if you refuse to recognise that change, otherwise we could merely declare the referendum result invalid because people previously voted to join in 1972, if singular votes define things for all eternity then why not that one? The whole argument against a second referendum is fundamentally democracy denying, despite the argument they make that it's a refusal to accept the will of the people - finding out the will of the people on a rolling basis by definition cannot be classed as refusing the will of the people.
First, Texas is not "doing better than California".
By "doing better" I mean higher absolute population growth, higher absolute employment growth, and higher absolute GDP growth over the period in question.
Without Houston, Texas would be sucking as bad as Kansas
And California would be sucking pretty badly without Silicon Valley too.
For someone with such an important life, you sure are invested in whining in an internet forum, you twat.
Yet another whiney anonymous coward accusing me a whining when all the whining is coming from the anonymous cowards, whereas I am just stating how things are without whining.
It can sometimes work that way, but there's no guarantee. If the buyer meets the sellers price, there's no one in between - the deal is done. But the moment that happens, the market is back to normal, with a gap between buyer and seller.
If the highest current outstanding bid (WTB) is $100, and the highest current outstanding ask (WTS) is $104, how's the bot going to make money - buy at 104 and sell at 100? No. The bot makes money when someone wants to sell "at market" the bot buys at 101, and the seller makes $1 more. Later, if the price hasn't moved, and someone is buying "at market", the bot may sell at 103, and the buyer saves $1.
Do you understand how this works? And why it's risky? If there's only 1 bot, it is reasonably safe, but it benefits both buyer and seller, so why complain. But there's usually more than one bot racing each other, so it's more like buy at 101.95 and sell at 102.05, which is great for the casual, small-time guy like me. I remember how it was last century, and it sucked.
"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas