Fair enough. Questioning intelligence was the wrong thing to do on my part, rather it should have been a person's respect for their physical wellbeing, though as you point out that isn't the government's business. But you will find "advocacy groups" (often with a "think of the children" mentality) that will try to impose their beliefs.
sticking the taxpayer with the bill. So yes, their choices do have an effect on the people around them.
I see your point, but you could ban any activities that are potentially dangerous under that same premise. If they do have a proven, measurable negative effect on the taxpayer-funded system then tax them higher, over-regulation by banning them is not the answer.
If people want to smash down 44oz of sugar like that then let them. If you need to regulate that then really you have to wonder about the intelligence of the sort of people you are imposing the ban on, the solution is to provide adequate education and if they still ignore that advice that is their choice! It isn't harming anybody else. I'm glad this sort of nanny-state rubbish has been defeated.
My TV is a computer monitor. No speakers, no audio output. Why pay for a stupid TV if I'm not going to use its decoder box?
Because your monitor doesn't have audio output, really the answer is right there just before the question. The decoder is hardly an expensive component.
I think the answer is obvious from the parent post. Without a dedicated receiver to route signals, hdmi all goes to one place, and many people prefer other speakers than their display has.
So you use a HDMI receiver or the digital output of your TV or a HDMI splitter with audio-out. That way you dont need audio and video cables running to every device.
Again, i have heard that time and time again, from people with limited minds that cant see outside their own little box.
Wrong, this whole concept and usable implementations have been around for decades and people don't use them because they aren't useful, not because there is anything wrong with the implementation just that some people can't understand that the square peg doesn't fill the round hole no matter how many times you re-implement the same square peg.
If people like you had their way, we would still be living in caves "i dont see any need to go outside, its just fine in this here cave"
I'm perfectly open to new ideas and innovation, but this isn't new or innovative, this is just flogging the dead horse.
Did he? They gave him bitcoins to hold onto for them, now the bitcoins are gone. That's about all we know. If he stole them then where are they? Or where are the proceeds of them?
"Give me your bitcoins, I'll hold onto them for you. They aren't regulated as a currency by the government (and you love that) also they are untraceable (you love that too), they are just data so if I lose them... well I'll try not to lose them."
Who would have thought anybody with half a brain would actually fall for that, but they did, to the tune of like $400 million worth of the damn things!
It would be defeatist if it were being dismissed on the failings of the implementation - like low resolution, low refresh rate or inaccurate head tracking - but it isn't defeatist to point out that even if perfectly implemented this idea still doesn't provide anything useful. With the low price of monitors and projectors these days it's not particularly difficult or expensive to build a physical implementation of this where you surround yourself with displays but it still isn't useful or beneficial for a desktop. CAVE setups were fantastic for things like CAVEquake but were useless for desktop applications/processes, not for any technological reason, just that the concept itself is awkward.
Consistent experiences across mobile platforms is not useful.
Actually yes it is, if you've developed an image editing application you want it to produce the same results on whatever platforms you target.
You want consistency across the applications on the platform that the user actually uses.
What relevance does that have to the application developer? If I hook into an image filter provided by some SDK why do I care whether that image filter works the same in other applications?
Normal iPhone users aren't going to care if Android users get a different UI to them, and normal Android users aren't going to care if iPhone users get a different UI to them.
What does UI have to do with it? This isn't about applications looking the same.
But both groups of users do care if the application they are using works differently to the other applications they use on their phone.
What are you on about? Why would I want 2 applications to do the same thing on the same device? Not only do I want applications to work differently, I expect them to, if they work the same then why would I have both?
Also, why limit it in general? Assuming Google and Apple (and others) don't come up with a stupidly complex, locked-down, restricted connectivity method why could't the mfgs support anything using an open/common standard?
I don't know about Google but with AirPlay, AirDrop, Facetime, Dock connector, Lightning connector, iMessage, etc... Apple aren't much a fan of open/common standards for inter-operability.
My enthusiasm is dead not because of the tech, but because of all the handcuffs that come with today's devices.
That's because people just want a phone that also has the ability to browse the web and run applications. If you are one of the few that want a phone without such "handcuffs" to be able to use it for other things then go with a Nexus phone.
Apple phones are the epitome of lock-in.
You aren't "locked in", don't be ridiculous. That is just the excuse of lazy people, if you want to change there is nothing stopping you from changing though oddly enough it's often geeks complaining that they are "locked in" so what exactly is it that you are having so much trouble that stops you from being able to change? What is keeping you "locked in"?
Considering how rock-solid reliable Linux is these days, it's utterly shameful how UNreliable and crashy Android is.
Why? Linux is the kernel, Android is built on top of Linux. Writing stable drivers for all the hardware in a modern smartphone (and the millions of variations in those configurations) plus the userspace to run it is no simple task.
Slashdot Mirror
as others have said, i'd call bs until i heard a model associated with this. Did you buy it new? off Ebay?
Why? What possible model - other than the 1st generation - could it have been?
Emmm.. You mean like Google?
Yes, very much like Google...but what's your point?
I agree, fighting natural selection by expending effort enforcing seatbelts on people too stupid to use them is detrimental to society.
then later yelled at for being hyper..and then even later yelled at for being moody when they crash out...
...then being diagnosed with ADHD...
Fair enough. Questioning intelligence was the wrong thing to do on my part, rather it should have been a person's respect for their physical wellbeing, though as you point out that isn't the government's business. But you will find "advocacy groups" (often with a "think of the children" mentality) that will try to impose their beliefs.
In civilized society we impose rules to prevent people from harming themselves.
And you don't see a problem with fighting natural selection?
So just tax it more.
sticking the taxpayer with the bill. So yes, their choices do have an effect on the people around them.
I see your point, but you could ban any activities that are potentially dangerous under that same premise. If they do have a proven, measurable negative effect on the taxpayer-funded system then tax them higher, over-regulation by banning them is not the answer.
If people want to smash down 44oz of sugar like that then let them. If you need to regulate that then really you have to wonder about the intelligence of the sort of people you are imposing the ban on, the solution is to provide adequate education and if they still ignore that advice that is their choice! It isn't harming anybody else. I'm glad this sort of nanny-state rubbish has been defeated.
Well, ad-supported, but I figure that's what he means.
My TV is a computer monitor. No speakers, no audio output. Why pay for a stupid TV if I'm not going to use its decoder box?
Because your monitor doesn't have audio output, really the answer is right there just before the question. The decoder is hardly an expensive component.
I think the answer is obvious from the parent post. Without a dedicated receiver to route signals, hdmi all goes to one place, and many people prefer other speakers than their display has.
So you use a HDMI receiver or the digital output of your TV or a HDMI splitter with audio-out. That way you dont need audio and video cables running to every device.
If your copyright is infringed upon, you still hold the copyright.
So if infringe on your privacy rights that's ok because you still have privacy rights?
Strictly speaking it may be embezzlement.
So, pretty much the same thing as if you put gold or cash in a bank?
No, I'm not quite sure how this isn't obvious to you but banks are regulated and insured by the government.
Again, i have heard that time and time again, from people with limited minds that cant see outside their own little box.
Wrong, this whole concept and usable implementations have been around for decades and people don't use them because they aren't useful, not because there is anything wrong with the implementation just that some people can't understand that the square peg doesn't fill the round hole no matter how many times you re-implement the same square peg.
If people like you had their way, we would still be living in caves "i dont see any need to go outside, its just fine in this here cave"
I'm perfectly open to new ideas and innovation, but this isn't new or innovative, this is just flogging the dead horse.
He stole people's property.
Did he? They gave him bitcoins to hold onto for them, now the bitcoins are gone. That's about all we know. If he stole them then where are they? Or where are the proceeds of them?
"Give me your bitcoins, I'll hold onto them for you. They aren't regulated as a currency by the government (and you love that) also they are untraceable (you love that too), they are just data so if I lose them ... well I'll try not to lose them."
Who would have thought anybody with half a brain would actually fall for that, but they did, to the tune of like $400 million worth of the damn things!
It would be defeatist if it were being dismissed on the failings of the implementation - like low resolution, low refresh rate or inaccurate head tracking - but it isn't defeatist to point out that even if perfectly implemented this idea still doesn't provide anything useful. With the low price of monitors and projectors these days it's not particularly difficult or expensive to build a physical implementation of this where you surround yourself with displays but it still isn't useful or beneficial for a desktop. CAVE setups were fantastic for things like CAVEquake but were useless for desktop applications/processes, not for any technological reason, just that the concept itself is awkward.
Consistent experiences across mobile platforms is not useful.
Actually yes it is, if you've developed an image editing application you want it to produce the same results on whatever platforms you target.
You want consistency across the applications on the platform that the user actually uses.
What relevance does that have to the application developer? If I hook into an image filter provided by some SDK why do I care whether that image filter works the same in other applications?
Normal iPhone users aren't going to care if Android users get a different UI to them, and normal Android users aren't going to care if iPhone users get a different UI to them.
What does UI have to do with it? This isn't about applications looking the same.
But both groups of users do care if the application they are using works differently to the other applications they use on their phone.
What are you on about? Why would I want 2 applications to do the same thing on the same device? Not only do I want applications to work differently, I expect them to, if they work the same then why would I have both?
To get a consistent experience across multiple platforms?
Also, why limit it in general? Assuming Google and Apple (and others) don't come up with a stupidly complex, locked-down, restricted connectivity method why could't the mfgs support anything using an open/common standard?
I don't know about Google but with AirPlay, AirDrop, Facetime, Dock connector, Lightning connector, iMessage, etc... Apple aren't much a fan of open/common standards for inter-operability.
My enthusiasm is dead not because of the tech, but because of all the handcuffs that come with today's devices.
That's because people just want a phone that also has the ability to browse the web and run applications. If you are one of the few that want a phone without such "handcuffs" to be able to use it for other things then go with a Nexus phone.
Apple phones are the epitome of lock-in.
You aren't "locked in", don't be ridiculous. That is just the excuse of lazy people, if you want to change there is nothing stopping you from changing though oddly enough it's often geeks complaining that they are "locked in" so what exactly is it that you are having so much trouble that stops you from being able to change? What is keeping you "locked in"?
Considering how rock-solid reliable Linux is these days, it's utterly shameful how UNreliable and crashy Android is.
Why? Linux is the kernel, Android is built on top of Linux. Writing stable drivers for all the hardware in a modern smartphone (and the millions of variations in those configurations) plus the userspace to run it is no simple task.
...Really? They decided to use that acronym?