It reminds me a lot of the tail end of the PowerPC line -- IBM stopped producing new CPUs suitable for Macs so Apple ended up going to Intel. Apple already makes their own processors for iOS devices so I wouldn't be surprised if they end up ditching Intel in the near future.
I occasionally have to drive longer distances to visit clients, sometimes unexpectedly, possibly more than 200 miles round trip. I don't want to ever be stuck waiting for my car to charge in those instances.
Plus, my wife has our garage all full of junk so charging overnight wouldn't be that easy.
That said, if hydrogen doesn't work out, I'll probably end up with a Model 3 (or something similar) for my next car. For now, the incentives made getting the Clarity easier and I get to try out something new and unusual. Plus, I've been wanting to drive a hydrogen-powered car since I saw a video about hydrogen in my high school chemistry class 40 years ago. I don't expect everyone would make the same decision I did, but everything just kinda lined up to make it very attractive to me.
Yes, but I consider the lease as a feature rather than a limitation. If somebody comes up with a way to charge EV batteries in less than 10 minutes in the next 3 years fuel cell vehicles will be toast. By leasing the Clarity I won't be stuck with a white elephant if that happens.
The mileage limit on the lease is more generous than most leases, too -- 20k/year. More than enough for my purposes.
Add to that a fairly low lease payment (considering all the bells and whistles included in the car), free fuel up to $15,000 again, plenty for my purposes. There's also a $5,000 rebate from the state. Put those all together and it becomes very attractive.
It helps that I live in an area with several refueling stations, with more planned.
I consider it a good choice to ride out the next 3 years and see how the EV and fuel cell technologies shake out. Then I can make a more long-term decision.
I prefer hydrogen because I can refill it to maximum range in under 5 minutes. I think if they can get electric cars to fully charge in under 10 minutes there won't be any reason for fuel cell cars. It'll mainly depend on whether researchers can accomplish that before they find a way to more efficiently produce hydrogen via renewable means. There's work ongoing on finding better catalysts for electrolysis that looks promising as well as other ways of producing hydrogen efficiently. It seems to me that it'll be easier to do that than to come up with the means to quickly transfer huge amounts of electrical energy without damaging the battery, but time will tell.
I think it's more of the case that legislators who make the rules restricting alcohol consumption needed a way to enforce the rules. If they let just anyone serve alcohol the rules probably won't get enforced very often due to ignorance if nothing else. If they make it illegal to serve without a license then the bartenders will enforce the rules on threat of losing their license and job.
It's a valid question, though. I'd be curious to know how much they are charging their customers for a version software they already have a license to use.
Snow Leopard was back when Apple still charged for major OS upgrades. I imagine they charged him the $29 list price.
What gets me is that there are thermostats out there that would malfunction or not work if they didn't have a constant internet connection.
Really? Can you name one or are you just assuming that's the case? I don't see why the failure of the remote-access function would keep you from manually adjusting the thermostat. Are there really models out there that have no manual interface?
You have to live near one of the existing fueling stations to be able to buy one. The guy down the street from me has two Mirais. I'm on the waiting list for a Clarity.
No, it just proves that if you create a massive PR headache for your employer you're likely to get fired. It doesn't even matter, really, what the contents of his post was or why it caused an uproar -- if you cause that much trouble for your employer you're going to get the ax pretty quickly.
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." -- Gerald Ford in 1970
It's not Obama's fault that the insurance companies decided not to allow that. The ACA had provisions to grandfather existing policies but the insurance companies decided to just drop them instead.
The major driver in Magsafe 2 was to change the format so that people weren't constantly trying to plug USB devices in it. Magsafe was almost identical to USB type 1? Magsafe 2's thinner wider connector isn't.
I think you have it backwards. I'm looking at the side of my office mate's MacBook Air and the MagSafe2 connector looks to be about the same size as the USB-A port right next to it. My wife has a circa 2009 MacBook pro and the MagSafe connector is thicker and was next to the Ethernet port. Much easier to mistake the MagSafe2 for the USB port right next to it.
I wonder what the thinking was during the transition from MagSafe to MagSafe 2?
Size. The original MagSafe connector was significantly larger than MagSafe2. In order to have a thinner laptop they had to make it thinner. That's probably the reason for abandoning MagSafe altogether -- the new laptops likely aren't thick enough to provide a big enough area for a magnet to hold onto.
It is remarkable to think about how their relative positions have changed in just a decade or two.
Not really. Things are very much the same. In the 90's, Apple had maybe a maybe 10% share of the personal computing market but 100% of the Mac market. Today, they have a little over 10% share of the smartphone market but 100% of the iOS market. The only thing that has changed is the coolness factor. In the 90s nobody was talking about Macs but today they're all talking about iOS. Apple's attitude hasn't really changed. The Mac was locked down just like iOS -- they're the only manufacturer and they control what people can do with it to varying degrees.
And other than the connector itself a Lightning headphone is worse in every way, because headphones are driven by your ear technology, not the phone's. The newest fanciest Lightning headphones in 5 years (assuming this decision sticks) will never be more than today's headphones plus a built-in Lightning dongle.
Well, for one thing, Lightning headphones allow you to have a better DAC than might otherwise be included in an iPhone. Probably not a big deal for most people, but if you're going to pay big money for fancy headphones maybe that'll be important?
While it makes sense for Apple to continue to focus the AppleTV primarily on the streaming content market, I think they could significantly expand their potential sales through gaming. Families who buy an AppleTV primarily as an inexpensive console for casual gaming would become potential customers for impulse streaming content purchases. (It's why even the most basic STBs have PPV functions.)
I agree it would be stupid for Apple to try to make the AppleTV a competitor to the PS4 / XB1. But I do think they have severely limited sales due to the restrictions they are putting on developers. The iStore description for games could clearly indicate what controllers are required / supported. The iStore app could even check what controllers have been paired with the AppleTV and give an extra "are you sure" prompt.
IMHO Apple should have created an iDevice controller app & SDK for developers to use. Multiplayer AppleTV gaming might even drive a few iPod Touch sales.
I think Apple is playing it pretty smart, actually.
They aren't betting the farm on AppleTV being a gaming platform, but they're preparing the ground for it nonetheless.
The remote restriction is so that people thinking about playing games on it won't be presented with nothing but titles that they can't even play.
The size restriction is to enable impulse buys without tying up the device for eons while a huge game downloads that they aren't even planning to play right away.
Once gaming has become established on AppleTV and there are plenty of games you can play out-of-the-box, they'll probably relax the restrictions on using the remote. The size restriction may stick around, but will probably be tweaked to accommodate developers just like the size of apps on iOS were initially restricted but later were allowed to get bigger.
Remember, it's always easier to relax restrictions than to add them on later. Once Apple gets a feel for how people and developers work with AppleTV they'll make some adjustments. They're just being initially cautious as usual to protect the user experience so people don't get turned off by it right out of the gate.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If they ask for a fingerprint to unlock the phone just ask them "which one?". If the device will fail back to a passcode after a few failures then you just have to hope they don't get lucky. Maybe pick a finger for unlocking the phone that's not obvious (i.e. not index or thumb) or "misunderstand" which one they asked for if they get lucky and use a different one instead. Oops!
The problem is that HDMI uses a 19-pin connector but Lightning only has 8 pins. So, they transfer the video to the adaptor, do whatever transcoding is necessary to format it properly for HDMI and put the signals on the pins. I don't know how else you're going to be able to go from 8 pins to 19.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, you didn't even need to RTA! It's right there in the summary:
system-wide Dark Mode, which optionally reskins the entire user interface with black or dark gray elements
If you don't want Dark Mode, just turn it off. You don't have to install a "Light Theme".
It reminds me a lot of the tail end of the PowerPC line -- IBM stopped producing new CPUs suitable for Macs so Apple ended up going to Intel. Apple already makes their own processors for iOS devices so I wouldn't be surprised if they end up ditching Intel in the near future.
because I don't trust Americans. They'll want to privatize it sooner or later
Ummm. They're already privatized. They've always been privatized. Heavily regulated, but still private.
I occasionally have to drive longer distances to visit clients, sometimes unexpectedly, possibly more than 200 miles round trip. I don't want to ever be stuck waiting for my car to charge in those instances.
Plus, my wife has our garage all full of junk so charging overnight wouldn't be that easy.
That said, if hydrogen doesn't work out, I'll probably end up with a Model 3 (or something similar) for my next car. For now, the incentives made getting the Clarity easier and I get to try out something new and unusual. Plus, I've been wanting to drive a hydrogen-powered car since I saw a video about hydrogen in my high school chemistry class 40 years ago. I don't expect everyone would make the same decision I did, but everything just kinda lined up to make it very attractive to me.
Yes, but I consider the lease as a feature rather than a limitation. If somebody comes up with a way to charge EV batteries in less than 10 minutes in the next 3 years fuel cell vehicles will be toast. By leasing the Clarity I won't be stuck with a white elephant if that happens.
The mileage limit on the lease is more generous than most leases, too -- 20k/year. More than enough for my purposes.
Add to that a fairly low lease payment (considering all the bells and whistles included in the car), free fuel up to $15,000 again, plenty for my purposes. There's also a $5,000 rebate from the state. Put those all together and it becomes very attractive.
It helps that I live in an area with several refueling stations, with more planned.
I consider it a good choice to ride out the next 3 years and see how the EV and fuel cell technologies shake out. Then I can make a more long-term decision.
I prefer hydrogen because I can refill it to maximum range in under 5 minutes. I think if they can get electric cars to fully charge in under 10 minutes there won't be any reason for fuel cell cars. It'll mainly depend on whether researchers can accomplish that before they find a way to more efficiently produce hydrogen via renewable means. There's work ongoing on finding better catalysts for electrolysis that looks promising as well as other ways of producing hydrogen efficiently. It seems to me that it'll be easier to do that than to come up with the means to quickly transfer huge amounts of electrical energy without damaging the battery, but time will tell.
I don't know about Nikola Motors but it works quite well in the Honda Clarity I drive every day.
I think it's more of the case that legislators who make the rules restricting alcohol consumption needed a way to enforce the rules. If they let just anyone serve alcohol the rules probably won't get enforced very often due to ignorance if nothing else. If they make it illegal to serve without a license then the bartenders will enforce the rules on threat of losing their license and job.
It's a valid question, though. I'd be curious to know how much they are charging their customers for a version software they already have a license to use.
Snow Leopard was back when Apple still charged for major OS upgrades. I imagine they charged him the $29 list price.
I wonder when car-makers are going to build non-user-replaceable batteries into the engine?
Like Tesla?
What gets me is that there are thermostats out there that would malfunction or not work if they didn't have a constant internet connection.
Really? Can you name one or are you just assuming that's the case? I don't see why the failure of the remote-access function would keep you from manually adjusting the thermostat. Are there really models out there that have no manual interface?
I certainly don't see any hydrogen cars.
You have to live near one of the existing fueling stations to be able to buy one. The guy down the street from me has two Mirais. I'm on the waiting list for a Clarity.
Then for what name outside .dev should the operator of a private server on a home LAN obtain a certificate?
Just create your own CA then and generate whatever certs you want. Or use self-signed certs.
No, it just proves that if you create a massive PR headache for your employer you're likely to get fired. It doesn't even matter, really, what the contents of his post was or why it caused an uproar -- if you cause that much trouble for your employer you're going to get the ax pretty quickly.
I want the ports of the Macbook Pro, but I want a physical escape key like the Macbook.
FYI, you can still get a Macbook Pro with a physical ESC key.
Or, if you have to have the touch bar MacBook Pro, just use the keyboard settings and remap the caps lock key to escape.
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." -- Gerald Ford in 1970
It's not Obama's fault that the insurance companies decided not to allow that. The ACA had provisions to grandfather existing policies but the insurance companies decided to just drop them instead.
No, "Spock's Brain" was an TOS episode.
I think the OP means "When the Bough Breaks" from TNG season 1. Just happened to see it last week on BBC America.
The major driver in Magsafe 2 was to change the format so that people weren't constantly trying to plug USB devices in it. Magsafe was almost identical to USB type 1? Magsafe 2's thinner wider connector isn't.
I think you have it backwards. I'm looking at the side of my office mate's MacBook Air and the MagSafe2 connector looks to be about the same size as the USB-A port right next to it. My wife has a circa 2009 MacBook pro and the MagSafe connector is thicker and was next to the Ethernet port. Much easier to mistake the MagSafe2 for the USB port right next to it.
I wonder what the thinking was during the transition from MagSafe to MagSafe 2?
Size. The original MagSafe connector was significantly larger than MagSafe2. In order to have a thinner laptop they had to make it thinner. That's probably the reason for abandoning MagSafe altogether -- the new laptops likely aren't thick enough to provide a big enough area for a magnet to hold onto.
It is remarkable to think about how their relative positions have changed in just a decade or two.
Not really. Things are very much the same. In the 90's, Apple had maybe a maybe 10% share of the personal computing market but 100% of the Mac market. Today, they have a little over 10% share of the smartphone market but 100% of the iOS market. The only thing that has changed is the coolness factor. In the 90s nobody was talking about Macs but today they're all talking about iOS. Apple's attitude hasn't really changed. The Mac was locked down just like iOS -- they're the only manufacturer and they control what people can do with it to varying degrees.
And other than the connector itself a Lightning headphone is worse in every way, because headphones are driven by your ear technology, not the phone's. The newest fanciest Lightning headphones in 5 years (assuming this decision sticks) will never be more than today's headphones plus a built-in Lightning dongle.
Well, for one thing, Lightning headphones allow you to have a better DAC than might otherwise be included in an iPhone. Probably not a big deal for most people, but if you're going to pay big money for fancy headphones maybe that'll be important?
While it makes sense for Apple to continue to focus the AppleTV primarily on the streaming content market, I think they could significantly expand their potential sales through gaming. Families who buy an AppleTV primarily as an inexpensive console for casual gaming would become potential customers for impulse streaming content purchases. (It's why even the most basic STBs have PPV functions.)
I agree it would be stupid for Apple to try to make the AppleTV a competitor to the PS4 / XB1. But I do think they have severely limited sales due to the restrictions they are putting on developers. The iStore description for games could clearly indicate what controllers are required / supported. The iStore app could even check what controllers have been paired with the AppleTV and give an extra "are you sure" prompt.
IMHO Apple should have created an iDevice controller app & SDK for developers to use. Multiplayer AppleTV gaming might even drive a few iPod Touch sales.
I think Apple is playing it pretty smart, actually.
They aren't betting the farm on AppleTV being a gaming platform, but they're preparing the ground for it nonetheless.
The remote restriction is so that people thinking about playing games on it won't be presented with nothing but titles that they can't even play.
The size restriction is to enable impulse buys without tying up the device for eons while a huge game downloads that they aren't even planning to play right away.
Once gaming has become established on AppleTV and there are plenty of games you can play out-of-the-box, they'll probably relax the restrictions on using the remote. The size restriction may stick around, but will probably be tweaked to accommodate developers just like the size of apps on iOS were initially restricted but later were allowed to get bigger.
Remember, it's always easier to relax restrictions than to add them on later. Once Apple gets a feel for how people and developers work with AppleTV they'll make some adjustments. They're just being initially cautious as usual to protect the user experience so people don't get turned off by it right out of the gate.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If they ask for a fingerprint to unlock the phone just ask them "which one?". If the device will fail back to a passcode after a few failures then you just have to hope they don't get lucky. Maybe pick a finger for unlocking the phone that's not obvious (i.e. not index or thumb) or "misunderstand" which one they asked for if they get lucky and use a different one instead. Oops!
The problem is that HDMI uses a 19-pin connector but Lightning only has 8 pins. So, they transfer the video to the adaptor, do whatever transcoding is necessary to format it properly for HDMI and put the signals on the pins. I don't know how else you're going to be able to go from 8 pins to 19.