...how did Joe get past her outright calling him a racist on stage during the debates?

Did he forget?

I'm curious how the black community will embrace her, as that it has been brought out during the debates that she was pretty well know for her high incarceration numbers for non-whites, especially for drug offenses.

I'm a bit surprised at this choice...he had others that were much better.

I was thinking the exact same thing. So, and our companies do not work with our military?

Perhaps the irony of this debacle will be that more Chinese app developers will start successfully targeting English speaking users through Huawei, i.e. English versions of their apps & services, thereby reducing the market share that goes through Google? Maybe Android will fragment significantly enough so that Samsung see an advantage in developing their own fork? Then Google will be well & truly screwed.

The skills you learn in a cram course are going to get you an entry level code-monkey job at best.

The idea of "streaming games to your TV so you don't have to have a console" has been around since around 2000. Here's a complete gravey^H^H^H list of some of the companies who have tried. Even technologies like NVidia's shield or Steam's ability to stream within the intranet don't seem to have taken off. Google entry into this market seems foolhardy at best.

Vast majority of mobile SOCs, desktop processors, and GPUs in the last few years have dedicated H264 and/or H265 decode blocks. Shouldn't be an issue from that standpoint.

Biggest challenge for many, many people is going to be bandwidth and latency.

Of course it is a project to track and monetize gamers. Tracking and monetizing users is, at the very core, what Google does. Although this could have comical results. Imagine all the 12-14 year old kids who spend the evenings and weekends playing FPS suddenly getting ads for Lipton, Tazo, Twinings, PG Tips, and others.

I can't be sure from the article, but it looks like this is a different approach to gaming. Normally the code and data for the games is sent to your device, and then your device runs the game logic, renders the graphics, and outputs the video and sound, sending data to central servers for multiplayer gaming. This service takes data from your controller, sends it over the network to a server, runs all the logic and rendering there, then streams the video and sound back to your device.

This is a radical change that has lots of serious implications if it catches on.

• Your local CPU is no longer important
• Your local GPU is no longer important
• Your local OS is no longer important
• Network latency is much more important
• Network bandwidth caps are very limiting

I expect Google will be able to encode the game video in a number of different formats, enabling streaming to many different devices. Doing this in real time is a nice trick. Eventually they should be able to support multi-monitor setups and other interesting configurations.

The A380 has always been a monument to European stupidity/delusion of grandeur

Oh, fuck off with your posturing. You don't know shit, so quit pretending that you do.

The A380 made sense under the conditions that were known at the time of its design. They didn't, and couldn't anticipate the rule changes that allowed two-engine aircraft to make long-haul flights over water. Boeing was looking at making higher-capacity versions of the 747, too.

-jcr

I hope you are not a financial analyst. You made two errors in your profit analysis. First the 25 billion is the development cost and does not include production costs. A large part of the revenue from a sale goes to covering the cost of production. Second, it is unlikely that the A380 ever sold at list price. Over the life the program, Airbus took a loss on production--they got to having "digestible losses" and were forecasting being revenue positive on production costs. They did not achieve any positive return on their investment

Finally, and the main reason why you are talking sh*t, the A380 development cost about 25billions, but at a cost per plane of 445million and 234 were sold, Airbus got around 105billions ... that is still a huge profit, most people would love to multiply 4x their investment, and we are talking billions of profits.

So yes, it is not the right design for current time, but it was when planned... and it was still a huge profit. The major problem is how long will it take for Airbus to replace it

What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.

Not so sure. When I was 12, movies were of better quality than these lets-make-a-quick-&-crappy-pre/sequel-to-keep-licensing-alive.

,,,the subway system? I'm assuming that subway rides are subsidized, that the fare does not cover the operation of the subway system. Riders pay $5 for a fare, but the actual cost to provide that fare is more, maybe 1.5-3x more.

What would a fare on the NYC subway cost if it payed to operate the subway?

I'm not opposed to mass transit subsidies, either. Lowering the price to get people into mass transit is a worthwhile goal, but if you let the subsidy get out of control it distorts the economics and you wind up with funding shortfalls because you're dependent on outside support.

Is it possible NYC's subway is approaching the point of being not economically viable? If it takes $20 billion to fix it right, is there a better transportation system that could be bought for that kind of money? $20 billion would put 5000 new electric cabs on the street and pay each driver $50k for the next 26 years. I'm not saying its better, but once the investment sizes are taken into considering it makes sense to think outside the box.

Would people be willing to pay $10 or $20 per fare for a system that self-funded, including upgrades and expansions? I bet a lot would switch to cabs or Uber for that money.