The same accusation can be leveled at any platform that is ad supported. Google is not a search engine, but an ad delivery system. YouTube is not a video sharing service, but an ad delivery system. Even Slashdot itself is not a forum for nerds who think they know more than they do, but rather an ad delivery system.
Effectively 100% of scientists in the field publishing papers in peer reviewed journals which all agree on the consensus is not a "popularity contest". It is sound science. If there was a genuine question as to whether anthropogenic climate change was real, there would be at least a handful of papers published by real scientists with expertise in the field indicating so. Please cite one of these papers.
Irrational people jump on anything that supports their existing beliefs and preconceptions, regardless of its veracity. You are one of those irrational people.
No, you are one of those irrational people who will find any reason to ignore the science on this one issue. Belief that there is a vast conspiracy that every single scientist with a passing interest in climatology is so willing to destroy their careers by falsifying data to perpetuate a ruse shows a complete misunderstanding of how science works on par with creationists and antivaxers.
If there is one lemon, it is likely that there will be three lemons, even from a company with the best quality control ever. And in today's Age of the Internet, it is likely that those three lemon owners will find each other, verify their confirmation biases, and get very noisy about how the product is a flop.
Which is why error messages need to be two-part dialogs. There needs to first be a friendly, clear, non-technical message intended for the end user indicating that something went wrong, it probably isn't their fault, and that they should pass the error on to either their IT staff or the developer (depending on the situation), and second a more technical error message, possibly hidden behind a "more information" button, actually describing what went wrong for whoever the message is passed on to so they can debug the problem.
If the technical error is all that the end user sees, their only reaction will be to mash buttons until they can continue with whatever they were doing, and get mad when that doesn't work.
Generally correct, except that this launch was to the ISS, which happens to be in a very low orbit to make it easy to rendezvous with it. But yes, it takes a lot more fuel to launch to something like GTO, so less fuel left to turn around and get back to the cape, so they have to land on a ship in the ocean.
Why do we never hear stories about Google fighting the FBI to protect Android users' privacy and right to encryption? Is it because Google is complacent with the government, or is it because Android phones are so easy to crack that the FBI doesn't even bother to ask?
When did Apple actually reduce the functionality of the iPhone, as in it could do 'X' one day, and the next day the ability to do 'X' was disabled? As an iPhone user since the 3G model, I can't think of any examples.
There are plenty of times where they provided an update to a range of products, and within that update certain new features were only enabled for the newer, more capable models, but that is a completely different situation than actually reducing functionality.
The question is whether he is actually a DINO, or just too spineless to stand up and fight for any progressive cause that doesn't have the backing of the republicans who control congress.
"Spherical" is not a part of any official definition. The term is "hydrostatic equilibrium", which only means spherical when the object isn't rotating. In fact, planets are often (always?) non-spherical due to their rotation, even Earth. Haumea is rotating really fast, which has pulled it into the odd football shape. If it wasn't in hydrostatic equilibrium, it wouldn't have even gotten a "dwarf planet" designation.
To be fair, the article is not intended to be a review of a particular study. It is meant to be an opinion piece that draws from several studies, including one that states that standing desks don't result in much added standing time on average, and another that states that prolonged standing itself can be damaging to a person's veins. The author's point is not that sitting for 8 hours is good, but that standing desks are not the panacea to solve all of the problems from sitting all day. And it kind of makes sense. Most of the problems from sitting are due to being sedentary, and standing in one place all day doesn't do anything to solve that. Combined with the risks to joint and vein health, is the standing desk fad really worth it?
It's a subtle variation on Betteridge's law. People have started to see through sensationalist headlines like "Is drinking water actually bad for you?", so the clickbaity editors switch to "Drinking water might actually be bad for you" instead.
Depends on what you are lead to believe that the musculoskeletal adjustments accomplish. If all you believe you are getting is a better posture and a good massage, then good for you. If your chiropractor utters the word 'subluxation', and tries to claim a vast variety of health benefits from adjustment that have nothing to do with bones and joints, the chiropractor is a quack of the first degree, and you've been had.
BB got done in because iPhone was hot and shiny, but the feature set was laughable. It didn't even have copy paste!
BB got done in because they thought that an extensive feature set was all people care about, when it turns out people would rather have a device that does a few things really well than a whole bunch of things half-assedly.
Unfortunately, Apple is good at convincing the first set of users to say the first generation product is great even though it's shit (first Gen iPad was shit too, didn't even have a camera). Then Apple fixes most of the screwups in the next generation model (copy and paste was added to OS 3) and because first gen Apple users said their shit product was actually great (because they bought it as a fashion/lifestyle statement, they pretty much have to) the users that buy for features come out of the woodwork.
It was this second generation of product that was really the issue. BB employees were right to laugh at the first gen iPhone, it was a total piece of crap. Problem is, Apple isn't dumb and they fixed the major issues. BB didn't see that coming, and should have.
Thing is, anybody who pays attention (as you rightly state BB should have) would know that this is Apple's M.O. For years, ever since the return of Jobs, whenever Apple would introduce a new product line, the first generation was lacking in one way or another. Each subsequent generation would be iteratively improved and polished to eventually become a pretty good product. Every single Mac line and every iDevice followed this pattern. So no, BB employees were not right to laugh at the first gen iPhone, because if they thought an iPhone 5 years down the road would have exactly the same quality and feature set, and therefore was all they would have to compete against, they were fools.
I think you're right. However, the paper could have gotten to the point quicker, and done more to actually further that argument. Whereas instead, it seems to be written by somebody with a feminist axe to grind, and almost seems to intentionally bait the anti-sjw crowd. Most of the paper seems to follow the argument of "Women's contribution to science tends to be overlooked" => "Glaciology is science" => "Therefore we ought to focus on women's contributions to glaciology". This may be true, but it comes across as a lot of fist shaking, and not a lot of getting to the point about what specific advancements in that field in particular have been overlooked due to male-dominated science. It reads more like an undergrad term paper written for a women's study class than something belonging in a serious academic journal.
FYI, the current design is already the future design you are looking for. All models that have touch id use hardware encryption, and can not be hacked with an OS update. The only reason Apple could hack the iPhone in question in the first place is because it is an older model.
The general populace would be very well served with a basic overview of statistics in their education. What would be very useful is a basic introduction to how probability works. Teach just the basics of normal distribution, and concepts like how if a fair coin is flipped heads five times in a row, the sixth flip still has only a 50% chance of heads. Probability is very counter-intuitive to someone who doesn't understand it, yet probability is encountered in just about everybody's daily lives. People make decisions regularly based on their belief of the likelihood of a particular outcome, and a misunderstanding of probability often leads to very bad decisions.
From what I can tell, all of Immersion's patents are just software patents that are somehow dealing with algorithms or methods of interfacing with haptic devices. Their IP has nothing to do with the actual physical implementation of haptic actuators, be they "rumble" style or linear "tap" style. Additionally, they do have a product line they sell (thus making them more than just patent trolls), which appears to be a kind of SDK for implementing haptics on Android devices, like a haptic studio of sorts.
That being said, a brief look through their IP portfolio looks like the worst of everything we hate about software patents, with a lack of originality and extensive obviousness. For example, if you had a device whose haptic actuator was offset from the center of the device, you might want it to vibrate with a lower intensity if the device is held on the side with the actuator, and a higher intensity if held opposite, such that the perceived vibration is constant regardless of how the device is held. You would now be in specific violation of Immersion patent # 9207764 - "Orientation adjustable multi-channel haptic device".
So you get better fuel economy with a Toyota Prius than a Caterpillar backhoe. Congratulations. They are completely different classes of device, so it is thoroughly pointless to compare them in that way.
It doesn't matter if there is no practical barrier to fiber. Profiteering ISPs are just as much a barrier as physical distance, since at the end of the day, you still don't have fiber to your home. And without major changes to the regulatory landscape, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
What is at question is the minimum data rate required to qualify for subsidies. Quibbling over the actual word used in the regulation text is being overly pedantic and missing the point, especially when considering that words may have multiple meanings which even so are unambiguous in their different contexts. Nobody was debating the definition of the word "broadband" in the regulatory sense when it was defined to mean "at least 4 mbps download data rate and at least 1 mbps upload data rate".
Occam's Razor: Planets are spherical and orbit a sun, moons can be any shape and orbit planets.
Done.
I prefer a definition where planet and moon are not mutually exclusive. The object most like Pluto by mass and composition in the solar system is Triton, and vice versa. They probably both started out with similar orbits in the same region. Then one was captured into Neptune's orbit, and the other only captured into Neptune's orbital resonance. One therefore is a moon, but I would argue that both should be considered planets as they are equal in every way except by accident of location. So I propose that a planet is simply a celestial object that is in hydrostatic equilibrium and is not a star. A planet may then be a moon, an exoplanet, or even a rogue planet that got ejected from its origin star.
Because only a single company based in a certain geographical region is ever permitted to be named after the major geographical feature of that region...
On the other hand, it may be a matter of representation. The version of iOS 9 deployed to an iPhone 4s will either naturally run slower due to the older hardware, or will be stripped down so that what is left runs reasonably well (e.g. like they did when they started allowing apps to run in the background). But if they advertised iOS 9 as running equally well on an iPhone 4s as it does on an iPhone 6s, then that would be misrepresentation, and the plaintiff has a case.
Slashdot Mirror
The same accusation can be leveled at any platform that is ad supported. Google is not a search engine, but an ad delivery system. YouTube is not a video sharing service, but an ad delivery system. Even Slashdot itself is not a forum for nerds who think they know more than they do, but rather an ad delivery system.
Effectively 100% of scientists in the field publishing papers in peer reviewed journals which all agree on the consensus is not a "popularity contest". It is sound science. If there was a genuine question as to whether anthropogenic climate change was real, there would be at least a handful of papers published by real scientists with expertise in the field indicating so. Please cite one of these papers.
Irrational people jump on anything that supports their existing beliefs and preconceptions, regardless of its veracity. You are one of those irrational people.
No, you are one of those irrational people who will find any reason to ignore the science on this one issue. Belief that there is a vast conspiracy that every single scientist with a passing interest in climatology is so willing to destroy their careers by falsifying data to perpetuate a ruse shows a complete misunderstanding of how science works on par with creationists and antivaxers.
If there is one lemon, it is likely that there will be three lemons, even from a company with the best quality control ever. And in today's Age of the Internet, it is likely that those three lemon owners will find each other, verify their confirmation biases, and get very noisy about how the product is a flop.
Which is why error messages need to be two-part dialogs. There needs to first be a friendly, clear, non-technical message intended for the end user indicating that something went wrong, it probably isn't their fault, and that they should pass the error on to either their IT staff or the developer (depending on the situation), and second a more technical error message, possibly hidden behind a "more information" button, actually describing what went wrong for whoever the message is passed on to so they can debug the problem.
If the technical error is all that the end user sees, their only reaction will be to mash buttons until they can continue with whatever they were doing, and get mad when that doesn't work.
Generally correct, except that this launch was to the ISS, which happens to be in a very low orbit to make it easy to rendezvous with it. But yes, it takes a lot more fuel to launch to something like GTO, so less fuel left to turn around and get back to the cape, so they have to land on a ship in the ocean.
Why do we never hear stories about Google fighting the FBI to protect Android users' privacy and right to encryption? Is it because Google is complacent with the government, or is it because Android phones are so easy to crack that the FBI doesn't even bother to ask?
When did Apple actually reduce the functionality of the iPhone, as in it could do 'X' one day, and the next day the ability to do 'X' was disabled? As an iPhone user since the 3G model, I can't think of any examples.
There are plenty of times where they provided an update to a range of products, and within that update certain new features were only enabled for the newer, more capable models, but that is a completely different situation than actually reducing functionality.
The question is whether he is actually a DINO, or just too spineless to stand up and fight for any progressive cause that doesn't have the backing of the republicans who control congress.
"Spherical" is not a part of any official definition. The term is "hydrostatic equilibrium", which only means spherical when the object isn't rotating. In fact, planets are often (always?) non-spherical due to their rotation, even Earth. Haumea is rotating really fast, which has pulled it into the odd football shape. If it wasn't in hydrostatic equilibrium, it wouldn't have even gotten a "dwarf planet" designation.
To be fair, the article is not intended to be a review of a particular study. It is meant to be an opinion piece that draws from several studies, including one that states that standing desks don't result in much added standing time on average, and another that states that prolonged standing itself can be damaging to a person's veins. The author's point is not that sitting for 8 hours is good, but that standing desks are not the panacea to solve all of the problems from sitting all day. And it kind of makes sense. Most of the problems from sitting are due to being sedentary, and standing in one place all day doesn't do anything to solve that. Combined with the risks to joint and vein health, is the standing desk fad really worth it?
It's a subtle variation on Betteridge's law. People have started to see through sensationalist headlines like "Is drinking water actually bad for you?", so the clickbaity editors switch to "Drinking water might actually be bad for you" instead.
Depends on what you are lead to believe that the musculoskeletal adjustments accomplish. If all you believe you are getting is a better posture and a good massage, then good for you. If your chiropractor utters the word 'subluxation', and tries to claim a vast variety of health benefits from adjustment that have nothing to do with bones and joints, the chiropractor is a quack of the first degree, and you've been had.
For example, a history lesson:
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
Not really.
I worked at BB during all this.
BB got done in because iPhone was hot and shiny, but the feature set was laughable. It didn't even have copy paste!
BB got done in because they thought that an extensive feature set was all people care about, when it turns out people would rather have a device that does a few things really well than a whole bunch of things half-assedly.
Unfortunately, Apple is good at convincing the first set of users to say the first generation product is great even though it's shit (first Gen iPad was shit too, didn't even have a camera). Then Apple fixes most of the screwups in the next generation model (copy and paste was added to OS 3) and because first gen Apple users said their shit product was actually great (because they bought it as a fashion/lifestyle statement, they pretty much have to) the users that buy for features come out of the woodwork.
It was this second generation of product that was really the issue. BB employees were right to laugh at the first gen iPhone, it was a total piece of crap. Problem is, Apple isn't dumb and they fixed the major issues. BB didn't see that coming, and should have.
Thing is, anybody who pays attention (as you rightly state BB should have) would know that this is Apple's M.O. For years, ever since the return of Jobs, whenever Apple would introduce a new product line, the first generation was lacking in one way or another. Each subsequent generation would be iteratively improved and polished to eventually become a pretty good product. Every single Mac line and every iDevice followed this pattern. So no, BB employees were not right to laugh at the first gen iPhone, because if they thought an iPhone 5 years down the road would have exactly the same quality and feature set, and therefore was all they would have to compete against, they were fools.
The 5C model does not have a secure enclave chip.
I think you're right. However, the paper could have gotten to the point quicker, and done more to actually further that argument. Whereas instead, it seems to be written by somebody with a feminist axe to grind, and almost seems to intentionally bait the anti-sjw crowd. Most of the paper seems to follow the argument of "Women's contribution to science tends to be overlooked" => "Glaciology is science" => "Therefore we ought to focus on women's contributions to glaciology". This may be true, but it comes across as a lot of fist shaking, and not a lot of getting to the point about what specific advancements in that field in particular have been overlooked due to male-dominated science. It reads more like an undergrad term paper written for a women's study class than something belonging in a serious academic journal.
FYI, the current design is already the future design you are looking for. All models that have touch id use hardware encryption, and can not be hacked with an OS update. The only reason Apple could hack the iPhone in question in the first place is because it is an older model.
The general populace would be very well served with a basic overview of statistics in their education. What would be very useful is a basic introduction to how probability works. Teach just the basics of normal distribution, and concepts like how if a fair coin is flipped heads five times in a row, the sixth flip still has only a 50% chance of heads. Probability is very counter-intuitive to someone who doesn't understand it, yet probability is encountered in just about everybody's daily lives. People make decisions regularly based on their belief of the likelihood of a particular outcome, and a misunderstanding of probability often leads to very bad decisions.
From what I can tell, all of Immersion's patents are just software patents that are somehow dealing with algorithms or methods of interfacing with haptic devices. Their IP has nothing to do with the actual physical implementation of haptic actuators, be they "rumble" style or linear "tap" style. Additionally, they do have a product line they sell (thus making them more than just patent trolls), which appears to be a kind of SDK for implementing haptics on Android devices, like a haptic studio of sorts.
That being said, a brief look through their IP portfolio looks like the worst of everything we hate about software patents, with a lack of originality and extensive obviousness. For example, if you had a device whose haptic actuator was offset from the center of the device, you might want it to vibrate with a lower intensity if the device is held on the side with the actuator, and a higher intensity if held opposite, such that the perceived vibration is constant regardless of how the device is held. You would now be in specific violation of Immersion patent # 9207764 - "Orientation adjustable multi-channel haptic device".
So you get better fuel economy with a Toyota Prius than a Caterpillar backhoe. Congratulations. They are completely different classes of device, so it is thoroughly pointless to compare them in that way.
It doesn't matter if there is no practical barrier to fiber. Profiteering ISPs are just as much a barrier as physical distance, since at the end of the day, you still don't have fiber to your home. And without major changes to the regulatory landscape, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
What is at question is the minimum data rate required to qualify for subsidies. Quibbling over the actual word used in the regulation text is being overly pedantic and missing the point, especially when considering that words may have multiple meanings which even so are unambiguous in their different contexts. Nobody was debating the definition of the word "broadband" in the regulatory sense when it was defined to mean "at least 4 mbps download data rate and at least 1 mbps upload data rate".
Occam's Razor: Planets are spherical and orbit a sun, moons can be any shape and orbit planets.
Done.
I prefer a definition where planet and moon are not mutually exclusive. The object most like Pluto by mass and composition in the solar system is Triton, and vice versa. They probably both started out with similar orbits in the same region. Then one was captured into Neptune's orbit, and the other only captured into Neptune's orbital resonance. One therefore is a moon, but I would argue that both should be considered planets as they are equal in every way except by accident of location. So I propose that a planet is simply a celestial object that is in hydrostatic equilibrium and is not a star. A planet may then be a moon, an exoplanet, or even a rogue planet that got ejected from its origin star.
Because only a single company based in a certain geographical region is ever permitted to be named after the major geographical feature of that region...
On the other hand, it may be a matter of representation. The version of iOS 9 deployed to an iPhone 4s will either naturally run slower due to the older hardware, or will be stripped down so that what is left runs reasonably well (e.g. like they did when they started allowing apps to run in the background). But if they advertised iOS 9 as running equally well on an iPhone 4s as it does on an iPhone 6s, then that would be misrepresentation, and the plaintiff has a case.