edias

Is this a problem most people face? Not to mention a truck isn't gonna be able to run away from anyone, driverless or not.

Kinda sounds like you're inventing problems here and pretending human solutions exist (again, how will any truck run away in the first place?)

I'd imagine a car will hundreds of cameras and sensors in it would be better equipped to deal with crime anyways.

This couldn't be more wrong. The amount of glitches in BW that allow got micro potential is huge. It's actually one of the biggest complaints from BW players about SC2, the lack of available micro. Check out th video "Depth of Micro" by Lalush for more info on things like muta stacking, patrol micro, carrier leash range, and tons of other hidden micro.

You are also wrong about your last statement, the limiting factor for zerg that's you're talking about it APM which is pretty much unlimited for a bot. Injects can be automated without taking any attention from anything else.

Halo was an eSport but lost the qualities that made it a good eSport. The oringinal and Halo 2 were incredibly competitive games, but Halo 3 and especially Reach killed these aspects in favor of casual gameplay features.

CS GO was dead in the water eSport wise on release and took major core gameplay changes for it to get to a point where people were okay with it, but 1.6 is generally considered the better ompetetive game.

The idea that companies can just make a game an eSport is incredibly flawed. A game needs the qualities to become one. It's why the Gamecube version of Super Smash Bros, Melee, destroys the brand new one in tournament viewers despite Nintendo promoting the new game as an eSport.

StarCraft was only ever big in Korea, StarCraft 2 is more so the opposite but that didn't come out until 2010. Counter Strike died in the mid 2000s and only in the last 2-3 years has made a big comeback.

eSports historically has gone through bubbles and we are currently in the 3rd one. No eSports has ever been dominant for a long period of time.

Even still Counter Strike GO is not a resource intensive game. No one needs a top of the line PC to play that game at max settings. Also pretty much any tournament is not broadcasting from the players computer but have dedicated observers that will always run the game at max settings. Plenty of CS pros still use 4:3 aspect ratios, but their games would be broadcast in HD.

>There have been some investigation of settings and high vs. low generally doesn't give you an advantage or disadvantage either way.

Yes and no. In a game like Starcraft where cloaked units give a slight glimmer when moving, pros universally optimize settings to enhance this glimmer as much as possible, and low graphics is one of the settings they use. More so though pros just stick to what their used to regardless of objective performance. It's why so many CS pros still use 4:3 aspect ratio.

This isn't a re-branding. Google will stay Google.

I've heard that the human trafficking numbers increase with legal prostitution since volume increases also, even if the percentage is lower. The Netherlands has huge problems with drug smuggling and human trafficking despite both being largely legal there.

While I don't disagree that prostitution should be legal, it's a bit more complicated than the utopia you just painted.

That sounds nice in theory but in actuality is complete BS. On a site like Teamliquid.net, a video game/eSports forum and team, over 50% of visitors have ad blocked enabled and they in no way make of this missed revenue from donations or TL Plus ($5/mo for ad free).

Everyone always says they only have ad block on for obnoxious sites, but that's such a load of shit. The free internet is run by ads, like it or not, and as someone who uses ad block I accept that I actively hinder it.

I don't mind if people use ad block, it's just the moral high ground people take that annoys me.

But its the content creators being punished, not the ad companies. If anything ad blockers are in their interest since the type of person who blocks ads is probably the type of person to ignore them anyway.

You've never played their recent games then. Battle.net 2.0 is routinely called 0.2 and considered a step back in every single way, aside from FB integration I guess. It didn't even have chat channels until recently or clan support. Promises made for starcraft 2 5 years ago have yet to be delivered on. Diablo 3 was a terrible cash grab and mostly abandoned by players.

After Activision purchased blizzard it has not been the same company.

From what I've heard McGill is very dependent by program, and education is by all accounts by far the worst program they offer.

I just spoke to a family member who's also a McGill grad and was told the education program is "the worst by a mile".

It seems a little disingenuous to lump the education program in with the rest of McGill.

I just talked to a a family member who wen't to McGill's business school and according to her the education program is "the worst one by a mile", and is pretty much separate from all the other programs. Courses in the education school wouldn't even count as electives towards her degree.

Because the vast majority of vehicle accident aren't criminal? Why would this be any different. If you've ever driven in Manhattan you'd know how easy it is for a mistake to happen, and it would be a mess to prove who's at fault since traffic laws and J walking are hardly enforced.

Wouldn't the cost of living and taxes in those countries normalize the incomes a little bit?

That's as much their fault as it is the Olympics, plenty of other places (mostly smaller cities) are thriving because of the jump start the Olympics gave them.

For what it's worth, the village of Lake Placid currently has thriving tourist economy and the town is very well off. Without the 1932 and 1980 Olympics it would be a poor shit hole like the rest of the small towns in update New York.

Similarly, Salt Lake City was hardly a city before 2002 and now has a big tech industry, great public transportation and incredibly progressive compared to the rest of Utah.

Obviously it doesn't work out for everyone and costs have certainly gotten bloated in the last 20 years, but it's unfair to lump all the Olympic towns together like you do.

And to your point of making it international it would destroy tourist numbers for the event as (at least in my experience) the point of going to the Olympics is to take in the event as a whole, not just individual sports which no one really cares about outside of the Olympics.

There's always more than one reason to justify the acquisition price, but surely the desire to purchase in the first play is a bit more singular? Such as wanting to jump start their streaming service in this case, and the rest is just tangential benefits.

How much time have you tried customizing it to your liking? I couldn't stand Windows 8 before some serious tweaking, which don't get me wrong is a massive design flaw, but if you don't mind using some 3rd party software you can basically achieve the "never show me anything metro, ever" checkbox.

Definitely check out classic shell[1] if you haven't yet, I wouldn't be using Win8 if it didn't exist. Also you'll find plenty of guides to turning off charm bars/ gestures/hot corners and whatever other UI trickery Windows 8 brought us.

[1]http://www.classicshell.net/

Windows 8 really isn't that bad.

I avoided it like the plague when it was first released mainly due to the lack of start menu but between the 8.1 update and classic shell maturing a bit, I basically see it as a faster Windows 7 (especially start up on an SSD). I have some minor complaints but so long as I never have to enter the metro UI I've been pretty happy with it overall.

Generally they don't unless their doing something illegal. Most politicians are reasonably to very wealthy going into office, and being a high ranking politician basically secures them a high paying position in the private sector afterwards. Many people from the FCC/FDA will go into the telecom/pharmaceutical industries for example. Others will charge huge fees for speaking engagements and appearances. I remember reading Bill Clinton charges in the 10k-50k range for speaches but not sure on the specifics.

So basically no one expects to make money from their paycheck, but rather go into politics for the fame, connections, and other intangibles.

But realistically you do at some point. Sacrificing 1% of profits for a 20% safety increase is reasonable and smart, but doing the reverse would never happen.

Environmental impact in particular is an endless money hole. You can always spend more money to be marginally better, and every company (and individual) has their cut off.

> 97%+ of shareholders understand that Apple goes the extra mile in sustainability and agrees with that approach.

Meh. Over 50% of Apple stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual funds. I for one own Apple stock through index funds and just like every other company held by those funds I don't really give a shit about the specifics.

It's not an idiotic line, it's just incomplete. They have a legal obligation to their shareholders demands, whether that be profits or otherwise. That is a simple fact that can't be disputed. It just happens that for most public companies, shareholders wan't short term profits.

>companies are legally obligated to maximize profits/shareholder value

What this should really say is "obligated to maximize shareholder demands". It has nothing to do with ROI per se, just that the CEO is legally obligated to perform the demands of the shareholders. For public companies, 99% of the time that means maximizing short term profits to make institutional investors happy.

Like it or not, that's the way it is and not every CEO gets to be Tim Cook who has A LOT more leeway with investors than the CEO of "random fortune 500 company".

Microsoft has been doing fantastic over the past 5 years, especially when you take into account dividends. Just cause they were massively overvalued during the dot com bubble does not mean it has been a flat stock.

I really don't understand how you can dismiss market data that's right in front of you, it's bordering on denial.

>I've had the impression it was a kleptocracy run by bankers.

Is this really the view that foreigners have the how the states is run?

We actually rank among the least corrupt nations in the world depending on if you trust Transparency International or not. I guess you could say it's legalized corruption through lobbying and political donations, which I agree with to some extent, but even than it wouldn't be bankers. Pharmaceuticals top that list with room to spare, where as "Securities and Investments" don't even make top 5.

Lawyers are really the people who run America and anyone who has any sort of political ambitions will get a law degree, not become a banker.

Obviously the Citizens United case (the one that allows Corporations to donate) was fucked, but it's not like 20+ years ago everything was fine either. I really think this is just a result of HN/reddit having such a young demographic, no one remembers how bad things used to be as well.

Iran Contra? MK Ultra? The FBI under Hoover? Police assaulting union workers because why the fuck not? Rampant political corruption by organized crime in the 20s/30s?

You know the phrase "I wan't America to be the way I grew up in"? It's not because America was different, it's because you were a kid and didn't see any of it.

>but at the least, given what you said, it won't become a dead currency/stock (for a long time anyway).

There is no grantee of that with something as volatile as bitcoin. All it takes is the people playing the market getting burned one to many times and saying fuck it. This could happen tomorrow or never.

I really can't think of any investment as risky as bitcoin.

From my brief observation of bitcoin this seems to be the defining characteristic for bitcoin, crashes followed by rebounds, pretty much since it was created, making me believe that most of bitcoin usage is speculation (is that already confirmed?).

Anyway, the question that keeps me from investing a dime into bitcoin is "What if it doesn't rebound?". If it really is being used as an investment vehicle and not a currency, than the answer to that, in my opinion, is eventually it will drop and continue to drop to the point where it's worth pennies on that dollar. With the boom and bust nature, I suspect many people will eventually just give up on it as a currency which would be close to a death sentence for bitcoin.

I am heavily biased towards index funds with the lowest fees so I'm rather pessimistic about bitcoin in general, just like I am about playing the stock market. It would be interesting to see what would happen if banks started to care about bitcoin. The market needs to grow many times over but I would expect them to be the only people making consistent money (and not even sometimes) just like they do on the stock market.

I think it's entirely dependent on the area, and using breathalyzer tests in one city as a proxy isn't very convincing. I grew up in a mostly white, upper middle class, Boston suburb with next to no violent crime. All I've ever seen the police do is harass teenagers, such as myself for J walking many years ago, or breaking up house parties.

I spent freshman year of university in The Bronx, an borough in NYC which has highest poverty rate of any urban area in the States and by far the most dangerous of the NYC boroughs. I remember early on being afraid of seeing cops outside the bar we all wen't to that openly served minors, but they had more important things to do, such as protecting us on the walk back to campus. J walking is almost encouraged just so you keep you moving. The people police have to deal with are some of the scariest I've ever seen.

Further, every couple days we get an email about students getting mugged or worse, and every time the assailant is black or Hispanic. Without fail, despite 50+ notices at this point. Please, tell me how a cop can put away racial prejudices with statistics like that? Should they? Of course, but it's not that simple.

Ultimately I think the largest problem is the militarization of the police force. An army is supposed to fight an enemy, the police are supposed to protect citizens and mixing up the two becomes very dangerous very quickly.`

*Edit Typos and clarity