Well, Apple make me Uncertain about the actual existence of the product, Doubtful on when it's really going to be released (now they'll have to; they can't delay much or they'll really use their reputation), and anyway I Fear it has not much use anyway - not just because my phone happens to be not an iPhone.
So that'd be UDF. Not FUD. But that's just a minor detail.
I didn't say the glance at the notification is not the interruption, however it does show that you are prepared (and, in a way, planning) to interrupt the meeting.
Besides, how often does it really happen to you that your wife takes the kid to hospital? Just be realistic here. Hasn't happened to me in eight years of having a kid. If it's really that important a message they can call someone at the company, and you can concentrate on the meeting instead of looking for messages all the time.
With Apple announcements I'm used to them giving a date the gadget will be in the shops. Not just a year, but a month, and often a day even. And that date is usually in the quite near future.
A launch date of "early 2015" makes me wonder whether it's even ready for production, or that quite some development is still to be done before it can be released. No specific date, and it's like half a year out. That's almost a full generation when it comes to mobile phones!
First see, then believe. When it's released it's time to discuss the feature set of this device, the actual feature set that is. For now, it's vapourware. It seems Apple really lost its mojo since the demise of the late Steve Jobs...
I don't see (3) and (4) working well on a screen that's not even as big as my wrist (and I have pretty big wrists).
In case of (3), if there's a message so important that it's worth interrupting a meeting for (why else would you check notifications?), just have your secretary check on it and warn you in person when such a message comes in.
The original Mickey Mouse movies are indeed old enough to be in the public domain, based on the principles of copyright.
This doesn't necessarily mean the character Mickey Mouse, or its likeness, should be in the public domain as well.
Even less so for trademarks, which do not have a set expiry date: a trademark is yours from the moment you start using it, until you stop using it. It doesn't necessarily have to be registered - though that does make defending it easier. Also, unlike copyright, a trademark must be defended at all times or you may risk losing it. Allowing a company to use your trademark for some time and then going after it (like patent trolls like to do with patented stuff) makes you risk losing your trademark rights altogether.
If so, why would those towers be only at their bases? If using regular mobile phone frequencies (or frequencies close to those), they won't be able to create a complete network out of them, simply because the reach of those towers is limited to some 50 km, or the nearest mountain or tall building. Get off the base, and lose your communication - doesn't sound like a very useful system in case of emergency or war.
If they indeed are Chinese (or otherwise foreign) spy towers, and so easily detected (the authors of the article didn't seem to have a hard time finding such towers), there's something terribly, terribly wrong with your homeland security.
In my office I intentionally placed the printer out of reach from the desks, to force movement. It's not much movement, but even a few steps go a long way in preventing RSI and related issues.
Humans are by far the most intelligent creatures on this world, and thanks to that intelligence can learn a lot.
Learning primarily takes place in the childhood stage, when parents directly teach their children all they need to know to survive (which until not so long ago, was indeed mostly survival skills: how to grow your own food and so). A long childhood (and with that, long parental care) may for this reason be an advantage: longer time to learn typically makes for a better end result.
As another poster pointed out, childhood is not the most robust stage of the life cycle of a human, especially early childhood. And even if parental care during childhood improves survival during that stage of life, it's genetically not exactly a productive stage of life - no procreation yet, so surviving that part is great but it doesn't necessarily help to spread those presumably beneficial long childhood genes in the overall population. Procreation tends to happen when the parental care has finished.
Maybe you should start following some proper news outlets, including some run by traditional news organisations, you know, the ones that search for news and publish it. Go out of your basement and buy a newspaper or so. Or if that's too much, try the online BBC news.
If you only found out about this by reading about the removal of the video, you're really looking in the wrong places for your news.
As counterargument, a couple hours of flying time is enough for many missions like seeing what's around the corner or inside a building, and cyborg moths don't come out of their pupa on demand, nor can they be pre-produced and stored waiting for use in an emergency.
The government builds the infrastructure (roads), then allows everyone to use this (bus companies, truck companies, private cars), as long as they follow the rules of the road (including safety requirements on the vehicles, size limitations, etc) and they pay a road tax (depending on vehicle size/type/weight).
It's not hard to translate this into network service. Don't say it can't be done, it's exactly how it works in many European countries - with great results. With the minor difference to the road part that the government does not own the infrastructure directly, instead it's owned by a heavily regulated private company that is responsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
Chickens can definitely fly. I've seen them fly on many occasions. Sure they're nowhere near as good as a seagull or an unladen swallow, they can get off the ground and fly short distances. This is why chickens are either kept indoors or have their wings clipped (and now you know where the expression comes from), as otherwise they'd fly out of their pen.
The number of birds killed by windmills is actually quite low: apparently the woosh-woosh sound of the blades cutting through the wind is enough to scare most birds away.
Huawei is one of China's main phone manufacturers. The brand is quite well known around here, and apparently they try to expand globally. Their advertising is probably to create brand awareness in other parts of the world, such as where you happen to live - and considering your comment, they're succeeding.
Unless they have some special powers, I suppose the police will have to pay for those ads, just like the regular advertisers do. This would result in the police actively sponsoring these allegedly illegal sites. Can have interesting political repercussions.
Well, of course. They're digging too deep in that. In the real world, I believe that there is no such thing as "the one" or "the perfect match". Maybe it feels like it, but that's in part thanks to the "pink glasses" effect of being in love and because both parties tend to adopt to one another, especially when a relationship lasts long (years, decades).
People probably can form lasting romantic relationships with a large number of other people, after the following basic matches are followed (assuming heterosexual relations but some will apply for homosexual relations too):
Geographic proximity.
Speaking the same language, or at least share a second language.
Similar age, preferably the female 1-5 years younger than the male.
Similar educational level, or the male having higher education than the female.
Similar political/religious views (left/right wing, Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/etc).
The above are true for the vast majority of heterosexual relationships. Another major factor in partner choice is also the availability of the person, as in, that s/he is not in another relationship already. The fact that someone is active on sites like OKCupid fulfils that requirement. Coincidence plays a great role as well: whether you meet a person now (when he's single and looking) or in half year (when he's just got a girlfriend). Whether you meet the person at all. He may be a perfect match for you on all fronts, yet unobtainable due to living 1,000 km away.
At least in this case they made significant savings - or at least, so they claim. The question is now of course, how was this calculated, and will it pass muster if an independent accountant checks the figures.
It's harder to give economic returns of a F1 race track; even harder to make an overall profit on one.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Apple make me Uncertain about the actual existence of the product, Doubtful on when it's really going to be released (now they'll have to; they can't delay much or they'll really use their reputation), and anyway I Fear it has not much use anyway - not just because my phone happens to be not an iPhone.
So that'd be UDF. Not FUD. But that's just a minor detail.
I didn't say the glance at the notification is not the interruption, however it does show that you are prepared (and, in a way, planning) to interrupt the meeting.
Besides, how often does it really happen to you that your wife takes the kid to hospital? Just be realistic here. Hasn't happened to me in eight years of having a kid. If it's really that important a message they can call someone at the company, and you can concentrate on the meeting instead of looking for messages all the time.
With Apple announcements I'm used to them giving a date the gadget will be in the shops. Not just a year, but a month, and often a day even. And that date is usually in the quite near future.
A launch date of "early 2015" makes me wonder whether it's even ready for production, or that quite some development is still to be done before it can be released. No specific date, and it's like half a year out. That's almost a full generation when it comes to mobile phones!
First see, then believe. When it's released it's time to discuss the feature set of this device, the actual feature set that is. For now, it's vapourware. It seems Apple really lost its mojo since the demise of the late Steve Jobs...
I don't see (3) and (4) working well on a screen that's not even as big as my wrist (and I have pretty big wrists).
In case of (3), if there's a message so important that it's worth interrupting a meeting for (why else would you check notifications?), just have your secretary check on it and warn you in person when such a message comes in.
You're mixing up things.
The original Mickey Mouse movies are indeed old enough to be in the public domain, based on the principles of copyright.
This doesn't necessarily mean the character Mickey Mouse, or its likeness, should be in the public domain as well.
Even less so for trademarks, which do not have a set expiry date: a trademark is yours from the moment you start using it, until you stop using it. It doesn't necessarily have to be registered - though that does make defending it easier. Also, unlike copyright, a trademark must be defended at all times or you may risk losing it. Allowing a company to use your trademark for some time and then going after it (like patent trolls like to do with patented stuff) makes you risk losing your trademark rights altogether.
True, if totally disregarding the part where the Chinese would have to ship those tanks unnoticed halfway across the world.
The part where they look at American tanks to copy the design and to make their own look exactly alike is the easy part, of course.
If so, why would those towers be only at their bases? If using regular mobile phone frequencies (or frequencies close to those), they won't be able to create a complete network out of them, simply because the reach of those towers is limited to some 50 km, or the nearest mountain or tall building. Get off the base, and lose your communication - doesn't sound like a very useful system in case of emergency or war.
If they indeed are Chinese (or otherwise foreign) spy towers, and so easily detected (the authors of the article didn't seem to have a hard time finding such towers), there's something terribly, terribly wrong with your homeland security.
In my office I intentionally placed the printer out of reach from the desks, to force movement. It's not much movement, but even a few steps go a long way in preventing RSI and related issues.
Humans are by far the most intelligent creatures on this world, and thanks to that intelligence can learn a lot.
Learning primarily takes place in the childhood stage, when parents directly teach their children all they need to know to survive (which until not so long ago, was indeed mostly survival skills: how to grow your own food and so). A long childhood (and with that, long parental care) may for this reason be an advantage: longer time to learn typically makes for a better end result.
As another poster pointed out, childhood is not the most robust stage of the life cycle of a human, especially early childhood. And even if parental care during childhood improves survival during that stage of life, it's genetically not exactly a productive stage of life - no procreation yet, so surviving that part is great but it doesn't necessarily help to spread those presumably beneficial long childhood genes in the overall population. Procreation tends to happen when the parental care has finished.
Maybe you should start following some proper news outlets, including some run by traditional news organisations, you know, the ones that search for news and publish it. Go out of your basement and buy a newspaper or so. Or if that's too much, try the online BBC news.
If you only found out about this by reading about the removal of the video, you're really looking in the wrong places for your news.
A large stock of cryogenic, cyborg moths; ready to be unfrozen and directed to do whatever their masters tell them to do.
This starts to sound rather creepy to me. Stuff for a scifi thriller.
As counterargument, a couple hours of flying time is enough for many missions like seeing what's around the corner or inside a building, and cyborg moths don't come out of their pupa on demand, nor can they be pre-produced and stored waiting for use in an emergency.
Solve it the same way the roads are solved.
The government builds the infrastructure (roads), then allows everyone to use this (bus companies, truck companies, private cars), as long as they follow the rules of the road (including safety requirements on the vehicles, size limitations, etc) and they pay a road tax (depending on vehicle size/type/weight).
It's not hard to translate this into network service. Don't say it can't be done, it's exactly how it works in many European countries - with great results. With the minor difference to the road part that the government does not own the infrastructure directly, instead it's owned by a heavily regulated private company that is responsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
Chickens can definitely fly. I've seen them fly on many occasions. Sure they're nowhere near as good as a seagull or an unladen swallow, they can get off the ground and fly short distances. This is why chickens are either kept indoors or have their wings clipped (and now you know where the expression comes from), as otherwise they'd fly out of their pen.
The number of birds killed by windmills is actually quite low: apparently the woosh-woosh sound of the blades cutting through the wind is enough to scare most birds away.
If those features are truly "essential", I wonder why Mozilla, Apple and Google haven't picked them up, and added them to their respective browsers.
What you consider "essential" obviously isn't that essential for a large part of the web-surfing public.
Maybe it's time to reanimate (D)ARPA - the guys that gave us the Internet.
They forgot to add the distiction "... your average script-kiddie has ever heard of".
I'd prefer to rephrase that last sentence a bit.
... those spies did it for a foreign, enemy power. Snowden did it for his own country.
Huawei is one of China's main phone manufacturers. The brand is quite well known around here, and apparently they try to expand globally. Their advertising is probably to create brand awareness in other parts of the world, such as where you happen to live - and considering your comment, they're succeeding.
Unless they have some special powers, I suppose the police will have to pay for those ads, just like the regular advertisers do. This would result in the police actively sponsoring these allegedly illegal sites. Can have interesting political repercussions.
Well, of course. They're digging too deep in that. In the real world, I believe that there is no such thing as "the one" or "the perfect match". Maybe it feels like it, but that's in part thanks to the "pink glasses" effect of being in love and because both parties tend to adopt to one another, especially when a relationship lasts long (years, decades).
People probably can form lasting romantic relationships with a large number of other people, after the following basic matches are followed (assuming heterosexual relations but some will apply for homosexual relations too):
The above are true for the vast majority of heterosexual relationships. Another major factor in partner choice is also the availability of the person, as in, that s/he is not in another relationship already. The fact that someone is active on sites like OKCupid fulfils that requirement. Coincidence plays a great role as well: whether you meet a person now (when he's single and looking) or in half year (when he's just got a girlfriend). Whether you meet the person at all. He may be a perfect match for you on all fronts, yet unobtainable due to living 1,000 km away.
At least in this case they made significant savings - or at least, so they claim. The question is now of course, how was this calculated, and will it pass muster if an independent accountant checks the figures.
It's harder to give economic returns of a F1 race track; even harder to make an overall profit on one.
Those customers will just get disconnected.