I think that the entire notion of creating a list using statistics about the number of people who read them, by ranking, etc. is an exercise in pointlessness. In the first case, you're duplicating the Amazon sales rank. In the second case, you're duplicating the Amazon review rank.
What would be far more interesting, IMO, would be to use machine learning to actually analyze the text of books within a genre, and then recommend other books based on which books a given individual likes and dislikes. And by feeding it a bunch of commonly read classics (Asimov, Clarke, Huxley, Wells, Bradbury, Orwell, Longyear, etc.), you could also establish a regular list of new books that ought to become classics (and, by extension, which new books ought to go in the trash bin).
Actually, it probably did get fixed, and then got broken again when they pulled data from upstream. Companies like Google and Apple get their mapping data from a number of providers, then merge that data together. If those providers give them bad info, if they just fix it in their local database, it will get stomped on by the next data pull. To fix it correctly, it has to get pushed up to the providers. If multiple providers give them incorrect data, it has to be fixed upstream by multiple upstream providers. Worse, those providers, in turn, get their info from multiple providers. This continues until you reach some government contractor.
If you're really unlucky, the city planning office tells that contractor not to fix the data, because Google Maps says that it is correct. And then Google fixes it on their side, and then the city sends the wrong data to TIGER, who sends it to somebody else, who sends it to somebody else, who sends it to Google or Apple, reverting the fix all the way down the line.
Submit a second report about the problem. Then at the same time, submit a report to your city planning office. Odds are at least even that they're the problem.
The government can just wait for your prints to regrow (while you are held in custody)
That approach won't work. The device won't take fingerprints after 48 hours. In fact, if the person simply refuses to submit to use of their fingers to unlock the device, they might get held in contempt, but after 48 hours, they can submit to the use of their fingers, and they're no longer in contempt, but it won't be of any value to the government.
That won't help you. Unless the "wipe" included fake usage and history, that's tampering with evidence and a crime all its own. And if your fake data doesn't match call record metadata, that will still be easy to prove as tampering.
This is a great example of why all phones should allow multiple user accounts. If you configure different accounts with different fingerprints, your private stuff could be in your left-handed account, and you could have a generic account with some minimal history and no access to much of anything in your right-handed acount (or vice versa).
This is also why all phones should allow user-configurable multiple access levels. Keep certain apps that contain private data locked behind an additional passcode, while allowing the fingerprint to unlock the phone far enough to make phone calls, watch Netflix, and play games.
Ironically, the possession laws are the sole reason why it isn't millions or billions. IMO, if you really want to get tough on harm to children, it has to be legal for people to A. submit photos that they think might be child porn, so that authorities can investigate them, and B. submit photos and metadata to a server to determine whether it is known child porn, with a guarantee that nobody will try to track you down and send you to jail or confiscate your equipment merely for checking a photo that you have questions about (or even a million photos that you have questions about).
But to make that possible, short of hiding it in some sort of onion routing nightmare, the existing possession law likely would have to be either drastically scaled back or eliminated. Why? Suppose somebody posts child porn on an Internet forum that I own/maintain. There are basically three likely outcomes:
A user flags it for review. A moderator looks at it and decides to delete it. Odds are, nothing bad happens.
A user flags it for review. A moderator contacts law enforcement for advice. The server is now part of an active investigation, and gets taken offline for forensics. In the best-case scenario, I get my hardware back in a couple of months. In the worst-case scenario, I lose the hardware, my backups, and the domain name through civil forfeiture.
I add software to scan the file and ask some server whether it is child porn. That request is logged. Law enforcement now knows that this image is on the server, and begins digging through other parts of the server. They find some image that wasn't in the database yet when it was originally submitted, but that is, in fact, child porn. Again, I lose the site for at least a couple of months, and maybe forever, thanks to civil forfeiture laws.
Each of those scenarios other than the first one is basically a death sentence for a website. So right now, with the law as written, the safest thing a site owner can do is to avoid looking for child porn, and if they discover child porn inadvertently, destroy all evidence that it was ever there. This is the polar opposite of the behavior that the law should be encouraging, and the sole reason for that is that possession laws invariably cause more harm than good, no matter how heinous the thing you're trying to ban.
Are you calling people trying to stop the spread of child pornography 'witch hunters'?
Depends on which people you're talking about and on how the information gets used. Google helping find and remove child porn is certainly not a witch hunt, particularly if they do so by notifying the site owners or ISPs. On the other hand, if law enforcement starts using the system to arrest people who unknowingly possessed child porn, that would be a witch hunt. It's a fine line.
The failure rare will invariably be much lower from an 1/8" audio jack, because dust will never cause those huge contacts to fail to make proper contact, whereas USB-C contacts are tiny and would be much more prone to failure from dust. Yes, the 1/8" audio jacks do sometimes fail to normal correctly because of dust (no sound when headphones are not plugged in), but I'd expect USB-C to have the same problem. If it doesn't, it will almost certainly have the opposite problem (failing to divert sound to the headphones when you do plug them in).
For water entry, I doubt there's much difference between the two. I suppose that in theory having one connector to waterproof is marginally easier than two, but not by enough to make it worth losing the headphone jack, IMO.
The floppy drive was obsolete LONG before that become the case. There were technologically better options commonly available by the early 1990s and yet floppy drives limped on for another decade and were still in shockingly common use until the late 1990s.
Your timeline is off by about a decade. Yes, for distributing software, CDs were better, but they weren't better for temporarily storing files to carry them back and forth between machines, between home and work/school, etc. The first devices that were solidly better were USB thumb drives, and those didn't even start to appear on the market until 2000. Everything else that was theoretically better (e.g. Zip drives) had significant technological problems (click of death) or were huge and non-portable (external hard drives). I mean, I suppose you could upload the files to a server over a dialup modem....
By separating the headphone jack you are letting those who want one a means to pay for it without imposing the cost of it on others who have no need for it.
Don't make me laugh. The savings from eliminating the headphone jack are measured in cents. Unless you own stock in the manufacturer, you'll never see a penny of that, because price points are set based on what the number looks like, not based on manufacturing costs. Unless the price difference is at least ten bucks, you can safely assume that the consumer won't benefit, and maybe not even then.
Besides, there is a 2+ order of magnitude difference in the cost of providing that feature internally versus providing it through an adapter (not to mention that you'll need more than one adapter so that you might actually have one when you need it). This isn't like supporting some huge video connector with lots of complex electronics. We're talking pennies versus almost certainly tens of dollars here. And if we're assuming USB-C with analog audio pins, the difference is single-digit pennies—just the extra cost of a jack. So you're forcing those who want the feature to pay hundreds of times more for that feature than they normally would, artificially inflating the cost of the product for them without providing any benefit to make up for the loss in functionality.
It certainly won't improve audio quality. The DACs in computers and phones are likely to be a lot better than the ten-cent bargain-basement crap that most headphone manufacturers would use, so if you tried to move to an all-digital path, the sound quality would probably get much, much worse, on average, rather than better. Even in the best-case scenario, an all-digital path won't get very much better, because there's almost no appreciable signal loss or induced noise in headphone-level signals over such a short distance. And that's not even counting the loss of reliability from the use of such tiny contacts.
And don't get me started on the rumors that Apple wants to do this in cell phones to make those devices thinner. Modern phones are already so thin that most users are forced to put them in a case to keep from dropping them constantly, because the sides o
Never mind. I found the answer. The patient's disease isn't actually muscle wasting, per se, but rather a form of muscle atrophy caused by failing nerves in the spinal column. If you kept the same spinal column, the new body would probably fairly quickly fail in the same way.
Not to mention that some studies suggest that Parkinson's disease might spread to the brain from the gut via the vagus nerve, so this very well might make the person immune, simply by virtue of that nerve not working.
You don't have to be a doctor to know that peripheral nerves regenerate, whereas CNS nerves basically don't. You just have to have passed 8th-grade science. And there have been actual successful reattachments of peripheral nerves, including bundles of nerves at or near the spinal cord, whereas as far as I know, reattaching severed spinal cords hasn't ever been done in humans.
I mean yes, there's definitely a bigger "ooh, neat" factor if they're successful at doing it this way, but it seems much more rational to do these sorts of tests on people whose spines are already severed because of injuries. If they really want to give this guy a full-body transplant, they should do it in a way that has a decent chance of success, rather than in a way that lots of doctors think is completely and totally insane.
What doesn't make sense is that they're transplanting the head, while severing the spinal cord. It would make a lot more sense to open up a path through the spine and move the head and the spinal cord together. That way, they can reattach a bunch of peripheral nerves independently, which means if things aren't perfect, they'll eventually grow together on their own and start functioning. That procedure would have a much better chance of success.
Calling a senator, especially Feinstein, "woefully ignorant" sounds naive... as if they aren't even listening to what the senators are saying.
When a politician says that tech companies have to do something, and the heads of every major high-tech company all say that it is impossible to do so in a way that doesn't fundamentally compromise the security of every man, woman, and child—including those working for our own government—and the politician basically says, "I don't believe you", then either the politician is woefully ignorant about technology or he/she is deliberately trying to destroy all modern technology. There's really no middle ground possible here.
I choose to believe the best in people, so I assume that she is simply borderline computer-illiterate like most of the rest of Congress, and that she's too clueless to recognize that when the heads of Google, Apple, and Microsoft all tell you that you're full of it, that's a good time to hire better tech experts to advise you. Because the only plausible alternative is that she is corrupt, and that somebody who will benefit from the destruction of all modern technology is pulling her strings like a puppet.
Never argued otherwise. However you have the argument backwards. I like minimalist devices where you add features you need/want rather than complicated devices that come with features you'll never use. Many people listen to music via the 3.5mm jack but not all users do. As such adding that feature adds cost and complexity while simultaneously being redundant and reducing the reliability of the device.
Actually, it's the other way around. If any significant percentage of customers are plugging in and unplugging 3.5mm plugs several times per day, then replacing those with much-more-fragile USB-C connectors dramatically reduces the reliability of the device for that percentage of your customers. This is likely to be a net loss, even when averaged across the entire customer base. Anybody who thinks otherwise hasn't tried plugging in a tiny 24-pin connector ten times a day for a year. Think about using a narrower version of Apple's 30-pin dock connector on your headphones, and ask yourself how long that's going to last....
It's like when everyone was still buying PCs with floppy drives because everyone else had them long after they had been rendered redundant by newer technologies.
No, it isn't even slightly like that. People bought PCs with floppy drives, and something like one percent of them used them more often than once a year. There was a huge cost, and very little benefit to very few people. And that was in an era where desktop computers were the rule, rather than the exception, so for the very few people who regularly used floppy drives, an external drive wasn't a significant inconvenience. More significantly, it was a cost that they paid once instead of every time they bought a machine, so even they came out significantly ahead.
With headphone jacks, it is something that a lot of users use on a daily basis. Devices are mobile, so having an external dongle is a pain in the backside on an ongoing basis. And instead of buying it once for every device, you're now buying the adapter once for every place that you use the device—one for your car, one for your laptop bag, one for wherever you plug in your phone at home, one to carry with you on your usual pair of headphones. And even if the adapter were only $5 (instead of a more typical $20 early adopter penalty), every affected customer would still pay a lot more for even a single adapter than they would for the 15-cent headphone jack.
Basically everything about this situation is radically different from what you're comparing it to. The only thing similar is that they involve a technology that has been around for a long time. However, the headphone jack has been around 3x longer than the entire history of the 3.5" floppy disk. It came onto the market way back in 1964. In those 52 years, that connector has not changed significantly, despite many, many companies trying to do so. It isn't going to magically go away just because a couple of badly misguided consumer electronics companies think it it is out of date....
I'm not neglecting it at all. Riddle me this. Exactly what use is a 3.5mm jack to a vision impaired person on a smartphone with no tactile interface. The front is a smooth piece of glass. Headphone jack or not, such a smartphone is mostly useless to them if they are substantially blind and if they aren't then the lack of the jack is of little consequence.
I take it you've never tried VoiceOver/TalkBack mode. Yeah, it's a pain to use, but it is possible.
Of course there's a reason. The only valid reason to drop the analog port in the first place is that DACs cost money, and good DACs cost even more. The port isn't inherently any thinner than a 3.5mm mini plug, once you factor in the mechanical grip surfaces required for the USB-C and the resulting inability to make the upper and lower surfaces of the jack be part of the device case.
Asynchronous audio is not a factor when listening to music which is what I do with my Bluetooth headphones about 95 percent of the time. The rest of the time I'm using the headphones while watching online videos on YouTube or some such site where asynchronous audio is common enough even with chorded analog headphones that I've quite frankly given up being annoyed over it and solved the problem by getting used to it. If I want to watch video in high quality with guaranteed synchronous audio I'm going to do that on my laptop or the TV and not on my phone or tablet although I could do that because my Bluetooth headphones have chord option so I can simply plug them into the analog audio port if I want to. The only real annoyance I have had with Bluetooth is that I sometimes get interference but that is a rare occurrence and flicking the phone into airplane mode usually fixes that issue.
My experience is the opposite of yours. I've only bee using Bluetooth A2DP with my iPhone for a week, and I'm already ready to ship the Bluetooth receiver back. Every single freaking time I pause playback, the iPhone stops talking to the Bluetooth receiver to save battery power. When I hit play, I lose two or three seconds of audio while it reconnects. That means missed words when watching Netflix, which means every single time I pause, I end up having to hit the "back 10 seconds button". Every. Single. Time.
Bluetooth is fine for phone calls. I've used it with a headset-profile head end in my car for years. But as a replacement for analog headphones, it has a very, very long way to go before it is usable, IMO.
Why do I have a funny feeling that he'll try to find one who is single and willing to seduce the President of Mexico, as part of his plan to get them to pay for that wall....
They'd just about have to be on crack to think that Fiorina would help them in California....
Most California Democrats in Northern California would instantly vote for a centrist Republican over either Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein. They are completely out of touch with the views of the Silicon Valley voting block, with Boxer tending to be very pro-Hollywood and anti-tech, and Feinstein being very pro-spook and anti-tech. Somehow, both of them won their last elections because the Republicans managed to pick somebody that the NorCal Democrats would dislike even more. That takes major skill for a political party to be that completely out of touch with potential voters, to such a degree that I have to assume that they didn't even try, or maybe even that they deliberately sabotaged their own chances for some reason.
In California, Fiorina will float Cruz's candidacy like a lead balloon, which makes me assume that Cruz isn't even trying, either, and that this is all basically just for show at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that Google owns them now, I'd say it's a safe bet.
I think that the entire notion of creating a list using statistics about the number of people who read them, by ranking, etc. is an exercise in pointlessness. In the first case, you're duplicating the Amazon sales rank. In the second case, you're duplicating the Amazon review rank.
What would be far more interesting, IMO, would be to use machine learning to actually analyze the text of books within a genre, and then recommend other books based on which books a given individual likes and dislikes. And by feeding it a bunch of commonly read classics (Asimov, Clarke, Huxley, Wells, Bradbury, Orwell, Longyear, etc.), you could also establish a regular list of new books that ought to become classics (and, by extension, which new books ought to go in the trash bin).
You mean like the "Not interested" button?
Actually, it probably did get fixed, and then got broken again when they pulled data from upstream. Companies like Google and Apple get their mapping data from a number of providers, then merge that data together. If those providers give them bad info, if they just fix it in their local database, it will get stomped on by the next data pull. To fix it correctly, it has to get pushed up to the providers. If multiple providers give them incorrect data, it has to be fixed upstream by multiple upstream providers. Worse, those providers, in turn, get their info from multiple providers. This continues until you reach some government contractor.
If you're really unlucky, the city planning office tells that contractor not to fix the data, because Google Maps says that it is correct. And then Google fixes it on their side, and then the city sends the wrong data to TIGER, who sends it to somebody else, who sends it to somebody else, who sends it to Google or Apple, reverting the fix all the way down the line.
Submit a second report about the problem. Then at the same time, submit a report to your city planning office. Odds are at least even that they're the problem.
What street?
That approach won't work. The device won't take fingerprints after 48 hours. In fact, if the person simply refuses to submit to use of their fingers to unlock the device, they might get held in contempt, but after 48 hours, they can submit to the use of their fingers, and they're no longer in contempt, but it won't be of any value to the government.
This is a great example of why all phones should allow multiple user accounts. If you configure different accounts with different fingerprints, your private stuff could be in your left-handed account, and you could have a generic account with some minimal history and no access to much of anything in your right-handed acount (or vice versa).
This is also why all phones should allow user-configurable multiple access levels. Keep certain apps that contain private data locked behind an additional passcode, while allowing the fingerprint to unlock the phone far enough to make phone calls, watch Netflix, and play games.
Ironically, the possession laws are the sole reason why it isn't millions or billions. IMO, if you really want to get tough on harm to children, it has to be legal for people to A. submit photos that they think might be child porn, so that authorities can investigate them, and B. submit photos and metadata to a server to determine whether it is known child porn, with a guarantee that nobody will try to track you down and send you to jail or confiscate your equipment merely for checking a photo that you have questions about (or even a million photos that you have questions about).
But to make that possible, short of hiding it in some sort of onion routing nightmare, the existing possession law likely would have to be either drastically scaled back or eliminated. Why? Suppose somebody posts child porn on an Internet forum that I own/maintain. There are basically three likely outcomes:
Each of those scenarios other than the first one is basically a death sentence for a website. So right now, with the law as written, the safest thing a site owner can do is to avoid looking for child porn, and if they discover child porn inadvertently, destroy all evidence that it was ever there. This is the polar opposite of the behavior that the law should be encouraging, and the sole reason for that is that possession laws invariably cause more harm than good, no matter how heinous the thing you're trying to ban.
Depends on which people you're talking about and on how the information gets used. Google helping find and remove child porn is certainly not a witch hunt, particularly if they do so by notifying the site owners or ISPs. On the other hand, if law enforcement starts using the system to arrest people who unknowingly possessed child porn, that would be a witch hunt. It's a fine line.
Scarier thought: What if they already did?
The failure rare will invariably be much lower from an 1/8" audio jack, because dust will never cause those huge contacts to fail to make proper contact, whereas USB-C contacts are tiny and would be much more prone to failure from dust. Yes, the 1/8" audio jacks do sometimes fail to normal correctly because of dust (no sound when headphones are not plugged in), but I'd expect USB-C to have the same problem. If it doesn't, it will almost certainly have the opposite problem (failing to divert sound to the headphones when you do plug them in).
For water entry, I doubt there's much difference between the two. I suppose that in theory having one connector to waterproof is marginally easier than two, but not by enough to make it worth losing the headphone jack, IMO.
Your timeline is off by about a decade. Yes, for distributing software, CDs were better, but they weren't better for temporarily storing files to carry them back and forth between machines, between home and work/school, etc. The first devices that were solidly better were USB thumb drives, and those didn't even start to appear on the market until 2000. Everything else that was theoretically better (e.g. Zip drives) had significant technological problems (click of death) or were huge and non-portable (external hard drives). I mean, I suppose you could upload the files to a server over a dialup modem....
Don't make me laugh. The savings from eliminating the headphone jack are measured in cents. Unless you own stock in the manufacturer, you'll never see a penny of that, because price points are set based on what the number looks like, not based on manufacturing costs. Unless the price difference is at least ten bucks, you can safely assume that the consumer won't benefit, and maybe not even then.
Besides, there is a 2+ order of magnitude difference in the cost of providing that feature internally versus providing it through an adapter (not to mention that you'll need more than one adapter so that you might actually have one when you need it). This isn't like supporting some huge video connector with lots of complex electronics. We're talking pennies versus almost certainly tens of dollars here. And if we're assuming USB-C with analog audio pins, the difference is single-digit pennies—just the extra cost of a jack. So you're forcing those who want the feature to pay hundreds of times more for that feature than they normally would, artificially inflating the cost of the product for them without providing any benefit to make up for the loss in functionality.
It certainly won't improve audio quality. The DACs in computers and phones are likely to be a lot better than the ten-cent bargain-basement crap that most headphone manufacturers would use, so if you tried to move to an all-digital path, the sound quality would probably get much, much worse, on average, rather than better. Even in the best-case scenario, an all-digital path won't get very much better, because there's almost no appreciable signal loss or induced noise in headphone-level signals over such a short distance. And that's not even counting the loss of reliability from the use of such tiny contacts.
And don't get me started on the rumors that Apple wants to do this in cell phones to make those devices thinner. Modern phones are already so thin that most users are forced to put them in a case to keep from dropping them constantly, because the sides o
Never mind. I found the answer. The patient's disease isn't actually muscle wasting, per se, but rather a form of muscle atrophy caused by failing nerves in the spinal column. If you kept the same spinal column, the new body would probably fairly quickly fail in the same way.
Not to mention that some studies suggest that Parkinson's disease might spread to the brain from the gut via the vagus nerve, so this very well might make the person immune, simply by virtue of that nerve not working.
That's nothing. In Chicago, you can even vote!
You don't have to be a doctor to know that peripheral nerves regenerate, whereas CNS nerves basically don't. You just have to have passed 8th-grade science. And there have been actual successful reattachments of peripheral nerves, including bundles of nerves at or near the spinal cord, whereas as far as I know, reattaching severed spinal cords hasn't ever been done in humans.
I mean yes, there's definitely a bigger "ooh, neat" factor if they're successful at doing it this way, but it seems much more rational to do these sorts of tests on people whose spines are already severed because of injuries. If they really want to give this guy a full-body transplant, they should do it in a way that has a decent chance of success, rather than in a way that lots of doctors think is completely and totally insane.
What doesn't make sense is that they're transplanting the head, while severing the spinal cord. It would make a lot more sense to open up a path through the spine and move the head and the spinal cord together. That way, they can reattach a bunch of peripheral nerves independently, which means if things aren't perfect, they'll eventually grow together on their own and start functioning. That procedure would have a much better chance of success.
Or rather, "Who am I? Why am I here?"
I was referring to the 1992 vice-presidential debates, where Admiral Stockdale began his opening remarks with, "Where am I? Why am I here?"
When a politician says that tech companies have to do something, and the heads of every major high-tech company all say that it is impossible to do so in a way that doesn't fundamentally compromise the security of every man, woman, and child—including those working for our own government—and the politician basically says, "I don't believe you", then either the politician is woefully ignorant about technology or he/she is deliberately trying to destroy all modern technology. There's really no middle ground possible here.
I choose to believe the best in people, so I assume that she is simply borderline computer-illiterate like most of the rest of Congress, and that she's too clueless to recognize that when the heads of Google, Apple, and Microsoft all tell you that you're full of it, that's a good time to hire better tech experts to advise you. Because the only plausible alternative is that she is corrupt, and that somebody who will benefit from the destruction of all modern technology is pulling her strings like a puppet.
Obligatory xkcd
Actually, it's the other way around. If any significant percentage of customers are plugging in and unplugging 3.5mm plugs several times per day, then replacing those with much-more-fragile USB-C connectors dramatically reduces the reliability of the device for that percentage of your customers. This is likely to be a net loss, even when averaged across the entire customer base. Anybody who thinks otherwise hasn't tried plugging in a tiny 24-pin connector ten times a day for a year. Think about using a narrower version of Apple's 30-pin dock connector on your headphones, and ask yourself how long that's going to last....
No, it isn't even slightly like that. People bought PCs with floppy drives, and something like one percent of them used them more often than once a year. There was a huge cost, and very little benefit to very few people. And that was in an era where desktop computers were the rule, rather than the exception, so for the very few people who regularly used floppy drives, an external drive wasn't a significant inconvenience. More significantly, it was a cost that they paid once instead of every time they bought a machine, so even they came out significantly ahead.
With headphone jacks, it is something that a lot of users use on a daily basis. Devices are mobile, so having an external dongle is a pain in the backside on an ongoing basis. And instead of buying it once for every device, you're now buying the adapter once for every place that you use the device—one for your car, one for your laptop bag, one for wherever you plug in your phone at home, one to carry with you on your usual pair of headphones. And even if the adapter were only $5 (instead of a more typical $20 early adopter penalty), every affected customer would still pay a lot more for even a single adapter than they would for the 15-cent headphone jack.
Basically everything about this situation is radically different from what you're comparing it to. The only thing similar is that they involve a technology that has been around for a long time. However, the headphone jack has been around 3x longer than the entire history of the 3.5" floppy disk. It came onto the market way back in 1964. In those 52 years, that connector has not changed significantly, despite many, many companies trying to do so. It isn't going to magically go away just because a couple of badly misguided consumer electronics companies think it it is out of date....
I take it you've never tried VoiceOver/TalkBack mode. Yeah, it's a pain to use, but it is possible.
Of course there's a reason. The only valid reason to drop the analog port in the first place is that DACs cost money, and good DACs cost even more. The port isn't inherently any thinner than a 3.5mm mini plug, once you factor in the mechanical grip surfaces required for the USB-C and the resulting inability to make the upper and lower surfaces of the jack be part of the device case.
My experience is the opposite of yours. I've only bee using Bluetooth A2DP with my iPhone for a week, and I'm already ready to ship the Bluetooth receiver back. Every single freaking time I pause playback, the iPhone stops talking to the Bluetooth receiver to save battery power. When I hit play, I lose two or three seconds of audio while it reconnects. That means missed words when watching Netflix, which means every single time I pause, I end up having to hit the "back 10 seconds button". Every. Single. Time.
Bluetooth is fine for phone calls. I've used it with a headset-profile head end in my car for years. But as a replacement for analog headphones, it has a very, very long way to go before it is usable, IMO.
Why do I have a funny feeling that he'll try to find one who is single and willing to seduce the President of Mexico, as part of his plan to get them to pay for that wall....
They'd just about have to be on crack to think that Fiorina would help them in California....
Most California Democrats in Northern California would instantly vote for a centrist Republican over either Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein. They are completely out of touch with the views of the Silicon Valley voting block, with Boxer tending to be very pro-Hollywood and anti-tech, and Feinstein being very pro-spook and anti-tech. Somehow, both of them won their last elections because the Republicans managed to pick somebody that the NorCal Democrats would dislike even more. That takes major skill for a political party to be that completely out of touch with potential voters, to such a degree that I have to assume that they didn't even try, or maybe even that they deliberately sabotaged their own chances for some reason.
In California, Fiorina will float Cruz's candidacy like a lead balloon, which makes me assume that Cruz isn't even trying, either, and that this is all basically just for show at this point.