It's more of a carrot/stick situation. What almost all the other commenters are pointing out is that the stick (ie, making it illegal) hasn't worked at all. If it is going to happen anyway (and yes, it will), then we might as well turn it into a carrot where this inevitable (on a societal level) behavior becomes much safer.

Or we could acknowledge that cable infrastructure was highly subsidized by taxpayer dollars at all levels of government (federal to local), such that whatever risk or cost the cable companies themselves did "invest" has been more than reimbursed. Furthermore, we could recognize that the function of the Internet is now much closer to city sewage (you *can* still use an outhouse... but do you want to?) than to satellite TV.

As such, especially given how many of our tax dollars were sunk into building it, we could decide that, by eminent domain, the cable infrastructure becomes public property (with the cable companies being "properly reimbursed" at rates analogous to those at which individuals get reimbursed when the gov't decides it needs their land), and Google or maybe even a bunch of new local "MomNpop ISP" companies can starting using the EXISTING lines to the home that we already paid for to provide up to 10Gbps symmetrical over full duplex DOCSIS 3.1.

But, you know, our current Congress or FCC wouldn't want to have a free market or anything...

Here's a source (and apparently there was a Google search): http://www.pcgamer.com/zenimax...

I am strongly in favor of Oculus in the overall case, and I had never heard anything about the part with Google searches or lots of different devices, but unfortunately, the fact that he wiped his computer almost immediately after hearing about the case was one of the few pieces of meaningful evidence Zenimax had, without which they likely would've lost the case altogether.

Can you explain how this would be evil? Frustrating, yes, but especially if they also continued to update Chrome OS for free in parallel for a while, I find it hard to call that "evil."

It essentially is. What they are doing is spoofing the Caller ID -- you may have noticed that many of the calls come from numbers that are essentially 1 number off (or shuffled) from your own number. Spoofing is illegal, but of course they don't care about that -- if the company is based outside the US, who is anyone going to sue?

Meaningful, unique content -- something more than just a tech demo or a standard video game where, at the last minute, someone said "oh and it has VR! kinda...".
That's why this is so exciting.

They don't own your phone, and they aren't claiming to. They do, however, own the networks your phone is trying to connect to. As stated, your phone will work just fine on Wifi, just not on their networks... Which they own.

Amazon has a huge physical presence in Tennessee.

That would seem to actually favor an engine like this. A good autocorrect does use context, but generally it only has access to what you have said before, not after, the current word (at least during the initial input). In such a context-dependent environment as you describe, being able to retroactively go back and change earlier text based on closely subsequent input (as speech recognition software often does, but keyboards generally don't) would seem especially valuable.

In fact, Google's voice accuracy is often due to exactly that: at least for me, it will often initially have something very wrong, but then end up with the right recognition result based on the rest of the input ("navigate to Pete's" -> "navigate to pizza restaurant").

You think you train Google Now? There is one situation where you give it a modicum of training. Guess where? The only part of the recognition that occurs on the device: "Ok Google" detection. Contrary to how you seem to think this works, this isn't 1999 Dragon NaturallySpeaking on steroids. There is no "database of simple rules and semantics." Their speech recognition (and that of Alexa) is powered by a huge neural net that is constantly expanding based on prior searches. That has strong potential criticisms for sure, but "this is really pretty easy" isn't one of them.

Are you sure? https://blogs.technet.microsof...

8K is going to be a really hard sell. I can only really appreciate my 65" 4k set because I sit about 7ft away from it. You would have to almost literally have your nose on a 65" 8k screen to tell any difference. I actually wonder if it is literally possible to be close enough to tell a difference vs. 4k, yet also far enough to have the entire screen in your FOV at once.

Wasn't this the case where Tesla said Autopilot wasn't engaged at all?

Please be sure to let Comcast know that in a significant portion of its major metro areas. Though admittedly, they did raise it to 1TB/Mo, vs the previously much more onerous 300GB/Mo prior to June.