The Nobel prizes awarded for science always seem to make sense. The literature ones most of the time too. It's the peace prizes (e.g., Obama in first year as president...whaaa?) that often leave people shaking their heads.
Like the noble prize for physics in 1974 which went to two male colleagues of Jocelyn Bell Burnell who actually made the discovery because she dared to have the wrong bits between her legs?
I applied an online label to the problem I was describing.
Oooh the "but on a computer" patent claim. Your online world is identical to the physical world. I share and reuse passwords, I already told you that. Now try and get in my bank account. Online off course.
You place a different level of value on privacy than someone else and then unfairly make some assumptions based on that persons's value of security. It's an asinine conclusion to make. They are different, regardless of how you misconstrue what I said.
Plus the lower power draw means they might not burn out in a year.
A comment brought to you from 1999. Seriously, has a CPU been capable of burning itself out since the Athlon 800?
It may burn out your battery, or burn a hole in your wallet if you leave it on all day and pay for electricity in Hawaii, but TPD doesn't have much correlation to reliability unless you're running your system seriously out of spec, like without a fan.
I mean, 360-degree convertible laptops aren't exactly sweeping the market
That's not quite fair. Gullwing doors are very specialised and serve no real purpose. 360-degree convertible laptops on the other hand are just that, tablet convertibles. There are a surprisingly large number of them. Often you'll confuse them for a normal laptop.
How many car companies are currently offering gullwing doors? Is it one or can you find another example? By comparison pretty much every laptop company offers 360-degree convertibles somewhere in their lineup.
It would be better to compare it to actual convertible cars.
What you're forgetting is that not every new technology automatically surpasses the one that came before it
I'm not forgetting this. My entire point was expressly pointing this out. The GP who referenced old timers still driving horse drawn carriages is the one who forgot it.
I'm only snarky where people come up with ridiculous doomsday scenarios involving activities that don't affect the majority of a population with scenarios that never actually play out in real life (really we're not talking fleeing last minute, you can do that in your EV, you specifically added criteria to it like having a flat battery and storing your own gas months in advance), as justification for something.
Your justification was poor.
These people wouldn't have had an EV charging station available to them on this highway
Tell me again why they would need to flee more than 300 miles in a forest fire? EVs don't need highway charging stations. They are most likely to be charged when you leave the house. Your justification is STILL poor.
Presume a person only had an EV to use and they had to rush around town to make preperations, and were only able to charge to 50% before having to leave.
So now we're rushing around town making preparations? I thought this was a last minute emergency, make up your mind.
Compounded by the fact that the next EV station would be further away than the next gas station with fuel
Citation needed. Most of Texas was out of fuel but not out of power while the hurricane swept through.
I think as more people get EVs this will become a larger concern and you are totally downplaying how serious it could be.
If more people get EVs it does become a concern. You know what happens when there's a general concern about something, the market corrects. Europe has already got a charging station that can fully recharge an EV in under 15min, and is planning a wide spread international rollout of it. Tesla also has them in the works. You can fill up at a petrol station? Congratulations, While you're running around town burning gas and then leaving your car at the shopping centre, mine is being recharged, at the shopping centre. On the street side, hell my local squash centre has EV charging point, and so does my work (I work at an oil refinery, let that sink in for a moment).
Your dooms day scenario won't play out. Or rather it plays out daily and would be improved by not having people do runs on gas stations which utterly fail to handle non-normal demands during disaster scenarios. And if you're really interested in disaster prepping, buy a generator, or better still just join the millions of other people in their local shelters who managed just fine rather than attempting to outrun the disaster (where you can burn your entire gas sitting stuck in traffic).
I was on Southern China 3 months ago from Amsterdam to Brisbane. I flew Cathay Pacific from Hong Kong to Sydney in late 2016. Neither even asked me to turn anything off during takeoff landing, or the safety presentation let alone on the flight. In fact the Cathay flight I had provided in flight WiFi and Cellular, they specifically mentioned I need to turn off flight mode to use it.
I don't fly Delta out of principle so I'll defer to your advice on that.
Not only am I listening. I often get the same message in several different languages and they all say the same thing. Turn devices off. Small devices can continue to use flightmode.
Actually the word "transmitting" has never been uttered on any airline I've ever been on. And they have been A LOT.
But ultimately what is said is quite irrelevant compared to what is actually done, or in this case what isn't done: no one with a wireless headset (of which there are A LOT of people on flights) is asked to switch it off.
No they don't. They say flightmode. And if you have an example counter to that then it's not relevant in the context of the debate which is "many overseas airlines"
Decades of nutritional studies have often turned out useless and in many cases harmful.
They have done nothing of the sort and most have been quite consistent in their conclusions. What has turned out useless and harmful is distilling the entire study down to a soundbite or headline such as "fat bad" or "carbs bad" instead of the actual conclusion that these many decades of studies have actually drawn: "Fat is bad in the complete absence of a balanced diet given conditional modifiers which are too long to explain in a headline". It just doesn't sound as catchy, and "eat a balanced meal" is too complicated of a message for most people to absorb.
Despite the fact that has been a very consistent conclusion from decades of nutritional studies.
Who remembers what they have eaten the last 15 days?
The answer to that would depend highly on if I was part of a study that was to record my habits.
The only studies that come out of the blue and surprise people without any kind of forewarning are psychological studies.
I did one of these while I was at uni. The "detailed questionnaire" I completed, well I do so on the run over a period of one month. I didn't need to remember anything more than the last night, and if I couldn't remember there was an option for that too.
Time is something in control of the people. There is almost no one on the planet who can't find 15min in his day to eat a decent breakfast, if they know of basic time management.
Want to eat breakfast in your tight morning schedule? Wake up 15min earlier. Want to free up your evening schedule? Spend 15min less time on Slashdot / rotting in front of the TV.
Neither of what you stated invalidates the GP's core argument, that just because something isn't "natural" doesn't mean it's not good for you.
You know what else we consumed in pre-historic times? Older meat. We weren't above scavenging, at least not until someone correlated it with death and disease.
Cooking solves a world of problems. The pre-historic argument which was being replied to was an incredible load of shit. Yeah they didn't get cancer. We wouldn't either if we lived such short lives. Kids crank out offspring as soon as they biologically could, and the 30 year olds WERE the tribal elders back then.
Actually it's not irrelevant at all. Flightmode is a stupid feel good measure and the airlines know it and treat it as such. The only time airlines ask you to disable flightmode is to enable full cellular calling. Many carriers will actively remind you that in order to access the in-flight wifi system you will need to enable wifi in your phone because flightmode has disabled it. Note the difference there, they don't ask you turn flight mode off, just to enable wifi.
Likewise even if you've just been told in your safety video to turn on flight mode, not a single person will complain that you turned on bluetooth or are using a wireless headset, though expect fire to pour down on you if your phone rings because then you didn't follow the instructions.
Quite clearly my phone is still in flight mode regardless if I enable wifi or bluetooth. I can prove it with the little plane icon on my screen.
What is said and what is enforced policy is irrelevant. No one will stop you from using bluetooth headphones on a plane. Including Ryanair which up until a few weeks ago I used to use quite regularly.
If.25Bn has been invested then there's sure as hell no process that could have allowed a single critical patch go unchecked as described.
Spending lots of money does not guarantee a good process. Heck it could be evidence that the process was poor from the beginning.
I smell a really shitty cop-out excuse.
I don't think so. I have no doubt in my mind that Equifax are truly incompetent on every level including the ability to come up with a process that is resistant to such human error.
This isn't a "cop-out excuse". This is evidence of severe missmanagement and their shareprice deserves to be slaughtered as a result.
Just how do you think Apple's modern headphones work anyway?
Poorly. Any benefit of AAC is completely destroyed by playing them through a set of Beats or those other pieces of crap Apple advertise with the worlds "high quality".
They use AAC so as long as your headphones support AAC (which all of the decent ones do)
As I said, Beats are not decent, and AAC support is very sparse outside of the trendy audio companies. (Bose are also far from "decent")
If AptX were really better Apple would support that also.
Same reason they are late to the market with everything else, they are cheap, don't want to pay license fees, prefer vendor lock-in to their own pet projects (remember the first company to sell AAC formatted music outside of the film industry?), and in general are happy to sell you yesterday's devices at tomorrow's prices.
I don't. From a safety point of view I ripped the head unit out and replaced it with one with bluetooth. Cables get tangled, and get in the way. Many negative points for the idiot that thought the AUX in point should be down near the gear stick.
I use AUX in in many places, and headphones in even more. But cars, and noise cancelling headphones in planes are the two places where bluetooth audio really shines.
Mine used to. Cables in the front of the car between the phone and the hifi are one of the dumbest ideas we ever introduced. From a safety perspective alone a bluetooth radio is a good idea in the car.
That's also the only place it's a good idea. Cars are noisy, speakers are imperfect, they are horrible acoustically so there's no real problem having craptastic bluetooth audio pumped into a car.
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer to disclaimer to disclaimer: Not anymore.
The Nobel prizes awarded for science always seem to make sense. The literature ones most of the time too. It's the peace prizes (e.g., Obama in first year as president...whaaa?) that often leave people shaking their heads.
Like the noble prize for physics in 1974 which went to two male colleagues of Jocelyn Bell Burnell who actually made the discovery because she dared to have the wrong bits between her legs?
I applied an online label to the problem I was describing.
Oooh the "but on a computer" patent claim. Your online world is identical to the physical world. I share and reuse passwords, I already told you that. Now try and get in my bank account. Online off course.
You place a different level of value on privacy than someone else and then unfairly make some assumptions based on that persons's value of security. It's an asinine conclusion to make. They are different, regardless of how you misconstrue what I said.
Hell, I'll take two!
Careful, this is HP we're talking about. A replacement pen will cost an additional $1,149.
Plus the lower power draw means they might not burn out in a year.
A comment brought to you from 1999. Seriously, has a CPU been capable of burning itself out since the Athlon 800?
It may burn out your battery, or burn a hole in your wallet if you leave it on all day and pay for electricity in Hawaii, but TPD doesn't have much correlation to reliability unless you're running your system seriously out of spec, like without a fan.
I mean, 360-degree convertible laptops aren't exactly sweeping the market
That's not quite fair. Gullwing doors are very specialised and serve no real purpose. 360-degree convertible laptops on the other hand are just that, tablet convertibles. There are a surprisingly large number of them. Often you'll confuse them for a normal laptop.
How many car companies are currently offering gullwing doors? Is it one or can you find another example?
By comparison pretty much every laptop company offers 360-degree convertibles somewhere in their lineup.
It would be better to compare it to actual convertible cars.
What you're forgetting is that not every new technology automatically surpasses the one that came before it
I'm not forgetting this. My entire point was expressly pointing this out. The GP who referenced old timers still driving horse drawn carriages is the one who forgot it.
I'm not sure why you are being so snarky.
I'm only snarky where people come up with ridiculous doomsday scenarios involving activities that don't affect the majority of a population with scenarios that never actually play out in real life (really we're not talking fleeing last minute, you can do that in your EV, you specifically added criteria to it like having a flat battery and storing your own gas months in advance), as justification for something.
Your justification was poor.
These people wouldn't have had an EV charging station available to them on this highway
Tell me again why they would need to flee more than 300 miles in a forest fire? EVs don't need highway charging stations. They are most likely to be charged when you leave the house. Your justification is STILL poor.
Presume a person only had an EV to use and they had to rush around town to make preperations, and were only able to charge to 50% before having to leave.
So now we're rushing around town making preparations? I thought this was a last minute emergency, make up your mind.
Compounded by the fact that the next EV station would be further away than the next gas station with fuel
Citation needed. Most of Texas was out of fuel but not out of power while the hurricane swept through.
I think as more people get EVs this will become a larger concern and you are totally downplaying how serious it could be.
If more people get EVs it does become a concern. You know what happens when there's a general concern about something, the market corrects. Europe has already got a charging station that can fully recharge an EV in under 15min, and is planning a wide spread international rollout of it. Tesla also has them in the works. You can fill up at a petrol station? Congratulations, While you're running around town burning gas and then leaving your car at the shopping centre, mine is being recharged, at the shopping centre. On the street side, hell my local squash centre has EV charging point, and so does my work (I work at an oil refinery, let that sink in for a moment).
Your dooms day scenario won't play out. Or rather it plays out daily and would be improved by not having people do runs on gas stations which utterly fail to handle non-normal demands during disaster scenarios. And if you're really interested in disaster prepping, buy a generator, or better still just join the millions of other people in their local shelters who managed just fine rather than attempting to outrun the disaster (where you can burn your entire gas sitting stuck in traffic).
I was on Southern China 3 months ago from Amsterdam to Brisbane. I flew Cathay Pacific from Hong Kong to Sydney in late 2016. Neither even asked me to turn anything off during takeoff landing, or the safety presentation let alone on the flight. In fact the Cathay flight I had provided in flight WiFi and Cellular, they specifically mentioned I need to turn off flight mode to use it.
I don't fly Delta out of principle so I'll defer to your advice on that.
The entire flight?
Then you're not listening.
Not only am I listening. I often get the same message in several different languages and they all say the same thing. Turn devices off. Small devices can continue to use flightmode.
Actually the word "transmitting" has never been uttered on any airline I've ever been on. And they have been A LOT.
But ultimately what is said is quite irrelevant compared to what is actually done, or in this case what isn't done: no one with a wireless headset (of which there are A LOT of people on flights) is asked to switch it off.
No they don't. They say flightmode. And if you have an example counter to that then it's not relevant in the context of the debate which is "many overseas airlines"
They could've taken the typical Hollywood approach and shown a bunch of green, Matrix-like gibberish scrolling across the screen.
Ironically from your quote the only example of actual hacking in the matrix was using legitimate hacking tools performing a legitimate hack.
FATAL EXCEPTION: Warp core dumped!
To be fair, depending on your shirt colour the scenario leading up to the warp core being dumped often is quite fatal.
Decades of nutritional studies have often turned out useless and in many cases harmful.
They have done nothing of the sort and most have been quite consistent in their conclusions. What has turned out useless and harmful is distilling the entire study down to a soundbite or headline such as "fat bad" or "carbs bad" instead of the actual conclusion that these many decades of studies have actually drawn: "Fat is bad in the complete absence of a balanced diet given conditional modifiers which are too long to explain in a headline". It just doesn't sound as catchy, and "eat a balanced meal" is too complicated of a message for most people to absorb.
Despite the fact that has been a very consistent conclusion from decades of nutritional studies.
Who remembers what they have eaten the last 15 days?
The answer to that would depend highly on if I was part of a study that was to record my habits.
The only studies that come out of the blue and surprise people without any kind of forewarning are psychological studies.
I did one of these while I was at uni. The "detailed questionnaire" I completed, well I do so on the run over a period of one month. I didn't need to remember anything more than the last night, and if I couldn't remember there was an option for that too.
People who have the time
Time is something in control of the people. There is almost no one on the planet who can't find 15min in his day to eat a decent breakfast, if they know of basic time management.
Want to eat breakfast in your tight morning schedule? Wake up 15min earlier. Want to free up your evening schedule? Spend 15min less time on Slashdot / rotting in front of the TV.
Neither of what you stated invalidates the GP's core argument, that just because something isn't "natural" doesn't mean it's not good for you.
You know what else we consumed in pre-historic times? Older meat. We weren't above scavenging, at least not until someone correlated it with death and disease.
Cooking solves a world of problems. The pre-historic argument which was being replied to was an incredible load of shit. Yeah they didn't get cancer. We wouldn't either if we lived such short lives. Kids crank out offspring as soon as they biologically could, and the 30 year olds WERE the tribal elders back then.
Actually it's not irrelevant at all. Flightmode is a stupid feel good measure and the airlines know it and treat it as such. The only time airlines ask you to disable flightmode is to enable full cellular calling. Many carriers will actively remind you that in order to access the in-flight wifi system you will need to enable wifi in your phone because flightmode has disabled it. Note the difference there, they don't ask you turn flight mode off, just to enable wifi.
Likewise even if you've just been told in your safety video to turn on flight mode, not a single person will complain that you turned on bluetooth or are using a wireless headset, though expect fire to pour down on you if your phone rings because then you didn't follow the instructions.
Quite clearly my phone is still in flight mode regardless if I enable wifi or bluetooth. I can prove it with the little plane icon on my screen.
What is said and what is enforced policy is irrelevant. No one will stop you from using bluetooth headphones on a plane. Including Ryanair which up until a few weeks ago I used to use quite regularly.
And I do own a DSLR as well, I just don't want to carry it when my phone is 95% as good most of the time.
Exactly! THAT is what motivates people :-), not that they don't want to be photographers or don't care about their pictures.
Any security organization which relies on a single individual's action or inaction to remain in good standing is simply fairytale.
Fairytales are just that. However there are plenty of truly incompetent organisations.
A lot of people have called this as an "excuse" or "scapegoating" or "bollocks". I call it evidence of top down severe missmanagement of the company.
If .25Bn has been invested then there's sure as hell no process that could have allowed a single critical patch go unchecked as described.
Spending lots of money does not guarantee a good process. Heck it could be evidence that the process was poor from the beginning.
I smell a really shitty cop-out excuse.
I don't think so. I have no doubt in my mind that Equifax are truly incompetent on every level including the ability to come up with a process that is resistant to such human error.
This isn't a "cop-out excuse". This is evidence of severe missmanagement and their shareprice deserves to be slaughtered as a result.
Just how do you think Apple's modern headphones work anyway?
Poorly. Any benefit of AAC is completely destroyed by playing them through a set of Beats or those other pieces of crap Apple advertise with the worlds "high quality".
They use AAC so as long as your headphones support AAC (which all of the decent ones do)
As I said, Beats are not decent, and AAC support is very sparse outside of the trendy audio companies. (Bose are also far from "decent")
If AptX were really better Apple would support that also.
Same reason they are late to the market with everything else, they are cheap, don't want to pay license fees, prefer vendor lock-in to their own pet projects (remember the first company to sell AAC formatted music outside of the film industry?), and in general are happy to sell you yesterday's devices at tomorrow's prices.
But hey, whatever floats your boat.
I don't. From a safety point of view I ripped the head unit out and replaced it with one with bluetooth. Cables get tangled, and get in the way. Many negative points for the idiot that thought the AUX in point should be down near the gear stick.
I use AUX in in many places, and headphones in even more. But cars, and noise cancelling headphones in planes are the two places where bluetooth audio really shines.
Mine used to. Cables in the front of the car between the phone and the hifi are one of the dumbest ideas we ever introduced. From a safety perspective alone a bluetooth radio is a good idea in the car.
That's also the only place it's a good idea. Cars are noisy, speakers are imperfect, they are horrible acoustically so there's no real problem having craptastic bluetooth audio pumped into a car.
The same can't be said for headphones.
Wired headphones, bluetooth car for me.