Check the UIDs brosif. I'm not the same person that made the original comment. And my desires are relevant, as a potential customer, their shitty connectors only drive me into their competitors arms and they lose money.
For the functionality described, it is identical. You can listen to music over your USB and control a music player. The only question is what is the standard protocol for controlling these devices over USB. The connectors are just copper wires.
Not sure if you knew this fluffy99, but the new connector doesn't support analog either. Also, it's proprietary, so it really fucks everyone good. Not sure if you enjoy watching everyone get fucked, but that's what proprietary connectors do. Besides, fluffy, what's wrong with digital audio and digital video? It's coming off a DAC anyhow, why not just avoid the generation loss that you would incur from unnecessarily converting it to analog?
proprietary connector means I can hook my phone into my car's USB port
What? Are you seriously confused? I can only hope this I've misunderstood your sarcasm. There are so many problems with your comment I'm not sure where to start. If the car has a USB port, it's not proprietary. Being able to stream music and control playlists has zero to do with the connector. Just imagine if iPhone had used USB from the start, then everyone would be able to use any phone in "device enabled" car. Thanks for fucking over everyone that doesn't buy your products Apple. The proprietary connector is only there to lock you into Apple products. Apple's new proprietary connector is only there to continue to lock you into new products and to force 3rd party device creators to have to licence the new connector and create a whole new wave of for-iPhone-only devices. Every time you see any proprietary connector, think of it as someone poking you in the eye with a dick. That's really what it is. They are fucking you. In the eye. With a dick.
I'm hoping this is sarcasm. But just in case it isn't. Yes a new adapter is going to harm the environment. People toss devices that use the old connector instead of reusing them. If they had used a standard (USB) connector in the first place you could reuse chargers etc. from other phones. Not only that but you could you switch from iPhone to Android to Windows Phone without having to buy new devices. Also, realize that that is the only reason for all Apple proprietary connectors. So you can't easily switch to a competitors device.
I can't honestly say I've endorsed a whole heck of a lot of ideas from Estonia, but this is a great idea. I only wish I could travel back in time and encourage my teachers to teach me and my piers programming at age 6. Then I'd probably be able to figure out this compiler error I'm getting right now.
But seriously, I hope that the U.S. adopts a similar program ASAP.
Apple has always loathes clones. First they forbade it, then they allowed it in a very limited licensed way, then they reneged on it, and now they don't offer it at all. And Apple still doesn't allow clones, and hasn't for what, like a decade? And I'm the jackass? Apple prevents their OS from being run on other PCs for no reason at all. You went full retard, never go full retard.
Apple VP Phil Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
Really which smartphones did Apple rip off and why didn't anyone sue Apple?
If you even bothered looking you'd find them. Preexisting functionality? All of it! Absolutely every thing the iPhone does had already been done long before the iPhone came out. I challenge you to name an application that didn't exist before the iPhone. As far as preexisting design goes how about the SPH I300 introduced almost a half dozen years before the iPhone. Has almost every feature the iPhone has. Full screen touch. App market. Scrollable contact list. Full browser with flash support. Replaceable battery. And the big difference? An antenna (year 2001 tech) and it has more buttons, which is arguably better than fewer. And if you didn't notice in your myopic zeal, Samsung has always had more buttons and still does. The SPH i300is the iPhone with year 2001 technology. It even integrated with MS Exchange and Lotus Domino. But back in those days manufactures were all about making new innovative designs that had dozens of form factors, not getting all litigious over ill gotten patents. And I'm not sure you noticed (I am sure you noticed), but virtually every phone ever made has rounded corners to some degree. The size of the radius is the only difference. Only after Apple started litigating did the size of the radius become some sort of legal point. Next you'll tell me Apple invented the rectangular display that every device used since the invention of LCDs. Maybe my TI-83 (1996) stole Apple's IP by having rounded edges and a rectangular screen. Or just maybe, people were putting rounded edges on electronics since the beginning?
1. Apple switch to Intel processors because IBM could not meet Apple's supply demand. It was a supple issue, that forced Apple to switch.
Yeah, false. Too bad for you we have historical fact to get in the way of your little fictitious story.
Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs.
2. The term "Workstation" predates Personal Computer.
Apparently you don't keep up on Apple benchmarking. When Apple ran its internal benchmarks against PCs, it refused to use the most powerful PCs as a comparison by calling them "workstations" and therefore not allowed to compete with Apple computers. Of course there is no distinction as you pointed out. Apple would gladly fire off benchmarks aginst PCs it knew it could beat, while leaving the high end PCs (that still cost less than a Mac!) out of the "Mac is faster than PC" race altogether. The simple fact that Apple ran its own benchmarks inte
I've been following this since day one, and I gota say, Apple comes out looking like the bad guy every time. Litigate > innovate in Apple's eyes. Always has been. Remember the Apple clones? Every card carrying geek here knows that Apple "borrowed" a vast majority of the iPhone's functionality from smart phones that existed 5-7 years before the first iPhone. That Apple suing because they were "copied" is utterly ridiculous, at least to people who watched the smart phone race from the beginning. Only the uninitiated find any validity to Apple's arguments.
And Apple, you feel people are being deceived into buying non Apple products? You who deceive people into buying Apple products with deceptive ads, demagoguery and appealing to people's ignorance about technology? How long ago was it that you claimed the Power PC was better than the Intel chip you now sport? Where did the in house Apple benchmarks go that supported your wild claims that the Mac was faster than the PC. It wasn't that long ago that you changed the meaning of PC (oh that's a workstation, not a PC) so you could falsely claim that your computers were better than any PC running any OS. Deceived indeed. Your empire is built upon deception, hardware lock-in and lack of freedom for consumers.
I don't know if Samsung copied someone else but my Samsung SPH I300 back in 2001 did pretty much everything an iPhone did but a half dozen years before Apple was even entertaining the idea of entering the phone market.
Full screen touch dialing, picture based contacts, web browsing (with flash!), grid app icon tray, many non proprietary app stores and as far as form factor goes the only difference was the number of buttons below the full size touch screen and the antenna on top. Remove those things and you basically have an iPhone with year 2001 technology.
Removing the antenna and some of the buttons is only subjectively good (in other words, some people might want more buttons or better reception.) But I could make a pretty strong argument that Apple copied the SPH I300 or any number of other phones that were all following this same form factor.
I believe that the number of phones that looked like they were on the way to becoming an iPhone long before an iPhone came out is the reason everyone is so upset at Apple for claiming innovation when all they did is join the smart phone wars long after the war started and implemented features that were long ago (5+ years) implemented by many other manufactures.
They got a jump on implementing the first 3d accelerated display only because they had a proprietary OS and hardware and only 1 hardware platform. But that, like everything else was just the natural progression of smart phones.
Minecraft: I know it's not the best optimized game, but I'm pretty sure it still uses hardware. I have had an Nvidia GTX 275 forever though many CPUs. When playing Minecraft with an older Quad Core Intel CPU (can't remember the model number) I would get around 30FPS at medium settings, after upgrading to an I7 with the same video card, now my Minecraft FPS is around 90FPS with the same settings.
So I can attest empirically that "CPU matters" is in fact the case. Also games like ARMA2, Supreme Commander 1 and I'm guessing any game that has a whole lot of entities doing magic stuff in memory at the same time, the CPU matters a great deal. When upgrading my CPU and keeping the same video card the aforementioned games really improved quite a lot.
This could of course (in my uneducated opinion) be because the programmers of the game didn't load the code that could have gone into the GPU onto the GPU but rather "rolled their own methods" on the CPU and harmed performance unnecessarily. Either because they did so ignorantly or were forced to do so. I can see that happening in Minecraft and ARMA2 which has pretty amateurish (unoptimized) coding, but I can't see that being the explanation for Supreme Commander 1, the programmers on Supreme Commander 1 were indeed supreme coders and I bask in their glory.
In your fervor to attack politically you failed to grasp the point of what he was saying. When people where asked a question they responded incorrectly.
Q: Who said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Many answered: George Washington, Thomas Paine, or President Barack Obama.
This isn't an attack against Obama any more than it is an attack against Washington or Paine, which can hardly be considered "left wing". He never said "Obama said this" but it's interesting that you found an instance of him paraphrasing Marx.
Oh the passwords are cryptographically scrambled? Do they mean hashed or encrypted? I imagine anyone with enough skill to steal all of those accounts knows how to operate a rainbow table. Why not just come clean an tell everyone their passwords are compromised too. Why leave everyone with a nebulous message like "cryptographically scrambled". Are they encrypted? Or did you just hash+salt them? I for one would really like to know!
You know, you're proving my point. I don't believe the question was "Is Lovelock an extremist, and/or does he agree with other climate scientists?" I only wish I could go back and add #5 to my list. "attack him for not agreeing with other scientists and call him extreme". It would be really cool if you actually addressed his valid critiques instead of "making up your own questions".
Here's an easy one, and try to answer this question without making up a new question in its place: If we can't predict past weather with any confidence using our climate models, how can we have any confidence in their predictions of future weather?
Here's a prediction of human reactions to Lovelock’s interview:
1) Attack his age. "Oh, he's an old doddering fool! He's lost his mind!"
2) Call him irrelevant because he's not publishing. "How can he know anything about climate science? He hasn't published a paper for so long!"
3) Attack the media source. "This paper is in the pocket of big oil!"
4) Attack using a straw man. "Oh, but the ice is thinning in Greenland! This proves everything I say and proves you wrong!"
What you won't hear, and what makes this more religion than science as Lovelock says, is an argument against Lovelock's actual critiques of the state of climate science. It's because his points are too logical and irrefutable, so rather than try and engage in that uphill battle they will change the question posed and make up their own questions to answer. Its something along the lines of cognitive dissonance but worse.
Isn't anyone else sick of these climate prognosticators? There can be no confidence to this resolution of predictions made 30 years out, or even 30 minutes out. Anyone who's ever used a differential equations knows that the more iterations of a simulation, the more errors stack up. Furthermore, if you can't even simulate past weather with your models then what the hell good are the models? That should invalidate any work done with climate models, at least until they become more accurate. It would be like using a ruler to measure something, but you knew that all the marks on the ruler were wrong, but you measured it anyway. Until there's a single climate simulator that can measure past weather I see fraud in all these pseudoscience prognostications.
Perhaps it has a little something to do with the fact that we're doing anything but teaching our children how to read. I'm sure they can tell you all about the first homosexual trans-gender american Indian activist farmer and how/why he/she is so important to our country. And when asked "why do we have to teach our children this hippy bullshit instead of hard math, English and science?" You'll get a vapid, nebulous answer like "It's for the good of the American people you insensitive jerk!". And then I'm expected to twist my perspective to think that learning to read isn't as important as teaching tolerance, acceptance and eventually pride in the people that our parents would have found morally repugnant. So to hell with reading! We need to know more about how the evil Europeans made so-much-worse the lives of the nomadic, cannibalistic, tribal war having, no wheel inventing, no medical, no road having, no written language having American Indians.
K-12 should be about learning how to become a scientist. Everything else can flow though that. Right now we're turning out complete idiots that can't read or write, have no critical thinking skills, no idea what the scientific method is or how to balance a check book. But I'm sure they can all tell you who MLK Jr. is. We need to get our priorities straight by kicking out the 1984 style political brain washers in the school. School is not there so you can train a wave of brainless leftists to vote for your party in the next election cycle! And I would be just as upset if the rightists were doing the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the Reichstag!
Nobody believes that you are anything but an Obama supporter trying to "show" everyone what Romney supporters are like.
Oh yes, please tell me all about the computer geniuses that wrote the PHP scripts that power facebook!
You sit on a throne of lies!
Check the UIDs brosif. I'm not the same person that made the original comment. And my desires are relevant, as a potential customer, their shitty connectors only drive me into their competitors arms and they lose money.
For the functionality described, it is identical. You can listen to music over your USB and control a music player. The only question is what is the standard protocol for controlling these devices over USB. The connectors are just copper wires.
Not sure if you knew this fluffy99, but the new connector doesn't support analog either. Also, it's proprietary, so it really fucks everyone good. Not sure if you enjoy watching everyone get fucked, but that's what proprietary connectors do. Besides, fluffy, what's wrong with digital audio and digital video? It's coming off a DAC anyhow, why not just avoid the generation loss that you would incur from unnecessarily converting it to analog?
What? Are you seriously confused? I can only hope this I've misunderstood your sarcasm. There are so many problems with your comment I'm not sure where to start. If the car has a USB port, it's not proprietary. Being able to stream music and control playlists has zero to do with the connector. Just imagine if iPhone had used USB from the start, then everyone would be able to use any phone in "device enabled" car. Thanks for fucking over everyone that doesn't buy your products Apple. The proprietary connector is only there to lock you into Apple products. Apple's new proprietary connector is only there to continue to lock you into new products and to force 3rd party device creators to have to licence the new connector and create a whole new wave of for-iPhone-only devices. Every time you see any proprietary connector, think of it as someone poking you in the eye with a dick. That's really what it is. They are fucking you. In the eye. With a dick.
So yeah, fuck Apple.
I'm hoping this is sarcasm. But just in case it isn't. Yes a new adapter is going to harm the environment. People toss devices that use the old connector instead of reusing them. If they had used a standard (USB) connector in the first place you could reuse chargers etc. from other phones. Not only that but you could you switch from iPhone to Android to Windows Phone without having to buy new devices. Also, realize that that is the only reason for all Apple proprietary connectors. So you can't easily switch to a competitors device.
So yeah, Fuck Apple.
60% of the time, it works every time....
Peers! Damn spell check!
I can't honestly say I've endorsed a whole heck of a lot of ideas from Estonia, but this is a great idea. I only wish I could travel back in time and encourage my teachers to teach me and my piers programming at age 6. Then I'd probably be able to figure out this compiler error I'm getting right now.
But seriously, I hope that the U.S. adopts a similar program ASAP.
Apple has always loathes clones. First they forbade it, then they allowed it in a very limited licensed way, then they reneged on it, and now they don't offer it at all. And Apple still doesn't allow clones, and hasn't for what, like a decade? And I'm the jackass? Apple prevents their OS from being run on other PCs for no reason at all. You went full retard, never go full retard.
From Macintosh_clone
If you even bothered looking you'd find them. Preexisting functionality? All of it! Absolutely every thing the iPhone does had already been done long before the iPhone came out. I challenge you to name an application that didn't exist before the iPhone. As far as preexisting design goes how about the SPH I300 introduced almost a half dozen years before the iPhone. Has almost every feature the iPhone has. Full screen touch. App market. Scrollable contact list. Full browser with flash support. Replaceable battery. And the big difference? An antenna (year 2001 tech) and it has more buttons, which is arguably better than fewer. And if you didn't notice in your myopic zeal, Samsung has always had more buttons and still does. The SPH i300is the iPhone with year 2001 technology. It even integrated with MS Exchange and Lotus Domino. But back in those days manufactures were all about making new innovative designs that had dozens of form factors, not getting all litigious over ill gotten patents. And I'm not sure you noticed (I am sure you noticed), but virtually every phone ever made has rounded corners to some degree. The size of the radius is the only difference. Only after Apple started litigating did the size of the radius become some sort of legal point. Next you'll tell me Apple invented the rectangular display that every device used since the invention of LCDs. Maybe my TI-83 (1996) stole Apple's IP by having rounded edges and a rectangular screen. Or just maybe, people were putting rounded edges on electronics since the beginning?
Yeah, false. Too bad for you we have historical fact to get in the way of your little fictitious story.
Apparently you don't keep up on Apple benchmarking. When Apple ran its internal benchmarks against PCs, it refused to use the most powerful PCs as a comparison by calling them "workstations" and therefore not allowed to compete with Apple computers. Of course there is no distinction as you pointed out. Apple would gladly fire off benchmarks aginst PCs it knew it could beat, while leaving the high end PCs (that still cost less than a Mac!) out of the "Mac is faster than PC" race altogether. The simple fact that Apple ran its own benchmarks inte
I've been following this since day one, and I gota say, Apple comes out looking like the bad guy every time. Litigate > innovate in Apple's eyes. Always has been. Remember the Apple clones? Every card carrying geek here knows that Apple "borrowed" a vast majority of the iPhone's functionality from smart phones that existed 5-7 years before the first iPhone. That Apple suing because they were "copied" is utterly ridiculous, at least to people who watched the smart phone race from the beginning. Only the uninitiated find any validity to Apple's arguments.
And Apple, you feel people are being deceived into buying non Apple products? You who deceive people into buying Apple products with deceptive ads, demagoguery and appealing to people's ignorance about technology? How long ago was it that you claimed the Power PC was better than the Intel chip you now sport? Where did the in house Apple benchmarks go that supported your wild claims that the Mac was faster than the PC. It wasn't that long ago that you changed the meaning of PC (oh that's a workstation, not a PC) so you could falsely claim that your computers were better than any PC running any OS. Deceived indeed. Your empire is built upon deception, hardware lock-in and lack of freedom for consumers.
I don't know if Samsung copied someone else but my Samsung SPH I300 back in 2001 did pretty much everything an iPhone did but a half dozen years before Apple was even entertaining the idea of entering the phone market.
Full screen touch dialing, picture based contacts, web browsing (with flash!), grid app icon tray, many non proprietary app stores and as far as form factor goes the only difference was the number of buttons below the full size touch screen and the antenna on top. Remove those things and you basically have an iPhone with year 2001 technology.
Removing the antenna and some of the buttons is only subjectively good (in other words, some people might want more buttons or better reception.) But I could make a pretty strong argument that Apple copied the SPH I300 or any number of other phones that were all following this same form factor.
I believe that the number of phones that looked like they were on the way to becoming an iPhone long before an iPhone came out is the reason everyone is so upset at Apple for claiming innovation when all they did is join the smart phone wars long after the war started and implemented features that were long ago (5+ years) implemented by many other manufactures.
They got a jump on implementing the first 3d accelerated display only because they had a proprietary OS and hardware and only 1 hardware platform. But that, like everything else was just the natural progression of smart phones.
Minecraft: I know it's not the best optimized game, but I'm pretty sure it still uses hardware. I have had an Nvidia GTX 275 forever though many CPUs. When playing Minecraft with an older Quad Core Intel CPU (can't remember the model number) I would get around 30FPS at medium settings, after upgrading to an I7 with the same video card, now my Minecraft FPS is around 90FPS with the same settings.
So I can attest empirically that "CPU matters" is in fact the case. Also games like ARMA2, Supreme Commander 1 and I'm guessing any game that has a whole lot of entities doing magic stuff in memory at the same time, the CPU matters a great deal. When upgrading my CPU and keeping the same video card the aforementioned games really improved quite a lot.
This could of course (in my uneducated opinion) be because the programmers of the game didn't load the code that could have gone into the GPU onto the GPU but rather "rolled their own methods" on the CPU and harmed performance unnecessarily. Either because they did so ignorantly or were forced to do so. I can see that happening in Minecraft and ARMA2 which has pretty amateurish (unoptimized) coding, but I can't see that being the explanation for Supreme Commander 1, the programmers on Supreme Commander 1 were indeed supreme coders and I bask in their glory.
In your fervor to attack politically you failed to grasp the point of what he was saying. When people where asked a question they responded incorrectly.
Q: Who said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Many answered: George Washington, Thomas Paine, or President Barack Obama.
This isn't an attack against Obama any more than it is an attack against Washington or Paine, which can hardly be considered "left wing". He never said "Obama said this" but it's interesting that you found an instance of him paraphrasing Marx.
Last week my friend has his D3 account hacked, and they treated him as if it was his fault! What a bunch of assholes. Get your shit together Blizzard!
Oh the passwords are cryptographically scrambled? Do they mean hashed or encrypted? I imagine anyone with enough skill to steal all of those accounts knows how to operate a rainbow table. Why not just come clean an tell everyone their passwords are compromised too. Why leave everyone with a nebulous message like "cryptographically scrambled". Are they encrypted? Or did you just hash+salt them? I for one would really like to know!
Because fuck you.
Captain Picard says it all http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q4z0l/ It's great how a meme can capture a moment like this.
You know, you're proving my point. I don't believe the question was "Is Lovelock an extremist, and/or does he agree with other climate scientists?" I only wish I could go back and add #5 to my list. "attack him for not agreeing with other scientists and call him extreme". It would be really cool if you actually addressed his valid critiques instead of "making up your own questions".
Here's an easy one, and try to answer this question without making up a new question in its place: If we can't predict past weather with any confidence using our climate models, how can we have any confidence in their predictions of future weather?
Here's a prediction of human reactions to Lovelock’s interview:
1) Attack his age. "Oh, he's an old doddering fool! He's lost his mind!"
2) Call him irrelevant because he's not publishing. "How can he know anything about climate science? He hasn't published a paper for so long!"
3) Attack the media source. "This paper is in the pocket of big oil!"
4) Attack using a straw man. "Oh, but the ice is thinning in Greenland! This proves everything I say and proves you wrong!"
What you won't hear, and what makes this more religion than science as Lovelock says, is an argument against Lovelock's actual critiques of the state of climate science. It's because his points are too logical and irrefutable, so rather than try and engage in that uphill battle they will change the question posed and make up their own questions to answer. Its something along the lines of cognitive dissonance but worse.
Isn't anyone else sick of these climate prognosticators? There can be no confidence to this resolution of predictions made 30 years out, or even 30 minutes out. Anyone who's ever used a differential equations knows that the more iterations of a simulation, the more errors stack up. Furthermore, if you can't even simulate past weather with your models then what the hell good are the models? That should invalidate any work done with climate models, at least until they become more accurate. It would be like using a ruler to measure something, but you knew that all the marks on the ruler were wrong, but you measured it anyway. Until there's a single climate simulator that can measure past weather I see fraud in all these pseudoscience prognostications.
Perhaps it has a little something to do with the fact that we're doing anything but teaching our children how to read. I'm sure they can tell you all about the first homosexual trans-gender american Indian activist farmer and how/why he/she is so important to our country. And when asked "why do we have to teach our children this hippy bullshit instead of hard math, English and science?" You'll get a vapid, nebulous answer like "It's for the good of the American people you insensitive jerk!". And then I'm expected to twist my perspective to think that learning to read isn't as important as teaching tolerance, acceptance and eventually pride in the people that our parents would have found morally repugnant. So to hell with reading! We need to know more about how the evil Europeans made so-much-worse the lives of the nomadic, cannibalistic, tribal war having, no wheel inventing, no medical, no road having, no written language having American Indians.
K-12 should be about learning how to become a scientist. Everything else can flow though that. Right now we're turning out complete idiots that can't read or write, have no critical thinking skills, no idea what the scientific method is or how to balance a check book. But I'm sure they can all tell you who MLK Jr. is. We need to get our priorities straight by kicking out the 1984 style political brain washers in the school. School is not there so you can train a wave of brainless leftists to vote for your party in the next election cycle! And I would be just as upset if the rightists were doing the same thing.
SOLID GRANITE CAR