I have a smartwatch. I love it. I don't see any reason to buy a new one any time soon. It does all of the things I need it to do. I have no doubt I'll replace my cell phone several times before I consider replacing my smartwatch.
I suspect most people in the smartwatch demographic either already own one, or are waiting for the prices to go down.
Really? My watch's GPS tells me how far I've run, and my pace. This is a huge benefit if I want to track my progress without always running on exactly the same pre-measured route. Monitoring my heartrate is also a nice feature for tracking my level of exertion, though not as valuable as the GPS part.
I'm not saying a watch is the correct solution for everyone, but for me, and for runners like me, it adds quite a bit.
I've only heard about plans to replace USB-A with USB-C, not to eliminate USB ports. USB-C is an actual standard that already exists. USB-A to USB-C adapters are easy to come by, and as time goes on, more and more devices will be using USB-C. I have no problem with this. In fact, my cell phone already has a USB-C port.
I'm sure road sensors can be helpful, but they can never tell the whole story about the road. If an autonomous car can't detect potholes, flooding, or other unexpected road conditions, then it's not truly autonomous. And I'm not sure what a car with advanced-enough sensors to detect these things would gain from roadside sensors. Yes, it's important to know where the road's location, but knowing the road's condition is at least as important.
From the description, it sounds like they setup real call centers to make the scam possible. A fake call center would be something that purports itself to handle calls, but in actuality, does not.
Astronauts have to be prepared to die. People who sailed to America had to be prepared to die. Explorers in general have to be prepared to die. So what? It would be newsworthy if he said such people would be 100% safe (because that would mean either he had amazing technology, or he turned into a lying jerk).
Some of us use our phones as phones. I have all of the applications I need installed now, weather, a few other things, and nothing since. Smartphones make for shitty computing devices, shitty game devices. They do okay as phones though.
I very rarely use my phone as a phone. However, I even more rarely download new apps. When I first bought my phone, I installed a bunch of apps that I knew I'd use regularly, and have installed very little since then.
So the 3.5mm jack takes up too much space in a device meant to fit in your pocket. I'm not sure I agree with the decision, but I follow the reasoning. And an RJ-45 port for ethernet would have made Macbooks too thick. Yes, this is true, and I have a thunderbolt-to-ethernet adapter plugged into my Macbook at work. What possible reason could there be to eliminate a 3.5mm port on a laptop? Is it too big? Really? My laptop's screen and keyboard don't have to go completely to the edge of the case - I can deal with a small border. I can deal with a few extra cubic centimeters in the computer reserved for various ports if it means I don't have to carry about a special dongle.
While we're at it, how about asking customers how often they use the letter 'x'? Think of how much space could be saved if we just removed that one key! (Don't worry, you can still type 'ks' to get the same phonetic sound.) Now that I think of it, 'c' is redundant too - we kan get by with the letters 'k' and 's' there as well.
If it's really just about size, why not try using a 2.5mm jack instead? At least any converters wouldn't need any proprietary technology. Just because I don't use it all the time doesn't mean I don't need it.
I own a (older) Macbook Air, an Android phone, and a Sandisk mp3 player. I use the same pair of earphones interchangeably between these devices. (Actually, I have a few pairs for different environments.) I've never needed any kind of special dongle (unless you count the charger, though both my phone and mp3 player charge via micro USB). I really like my Macbook, but if they keep pulling crap like this, my next laptop won't be made by Apple.
You can try to deny Google Play access to your handheld's location by opening the Settings app and digging through Apps -> Google Play Store -> Permissions, and flipping the switch for "location." But you'll be told you can't just shut out Google Play services: you have to switch off location services for all apps if you want to block the store from knowing your whereabouts.
Is this something new in Nougat? (Does anyone even run Nougat on anything yet?)
I'm on Marshmallow (6.0.1), and I can turn off location permissions for the Google Play Store, and wasn't "told" anything when I did. Everything else works just fine. I can even turn on location for games or other apps, and they still work, and Google Play still doesn't have access to location. So I'm not sure what the summary is talking about, here.
I'm running Nougat, and could turn off location for Google Play Store exactly as you describe without issue (actually, it was already off on mine). I suspect the article meant Google Play Service.
The article seems to use "Play store" and "Play service" interchangeably, but according to my app list (Android 7.0), they are two different apps. So which is it?
I followed the instructions to turn off google play's permission to use my location, but this was already turned off. Am I missing something? The article only says the "latest Android build".
"A lot of things wrong with the Tesla model S are done correctly (my opinion) in this car... It gets down to my product ideas of balance and getting the most from the least. Try to make things simple and affordable but very adequate. This car hits my sweet spot."
That's great, but I'd love some details. I've never driven a Tesla or a Bolt, so I don't know much about them. I'd love to read an engineer's opinion about their strengths and weaknesses, but this vague quote isn't helpful at all.
Yes, the conclusion sounds reasonable, except it seems to overlook:
1. Affordability. This is improving, but even if we want to, most of us can't afford to replace our current non-electric car with an electric. 2. Charging access. This is also improving, but anyone who relies on street parking won't be able to charge their car at home.
It would be equally reasonable to say that riding in a taxi would meet 90% of drivers' needs. A taxi would get people to where they need to go most of the time. But for most people, it would be prohibitively expensive, and require extra time waiting for the taxi to show up in the first place.
When I type my wrist doesn't move very much. I mostly move my fingers, and use several of them to type. While I can see how a person using the hunt-and-peck method could be tracked with his watch, I think it'd be much more difficult to track what the rest of us type.
Not only will the aerodynamics suck, but by making large parts of the plane removable, there will be a significant increase in weight. And then there's the fact that adding complexity can add points of failure.
While I can't watch that much TV, I do frequently half-watch shows. I'll have the TV on while doing something else. If the show is particularly interesting, I'll pay attention. But if it isn't, then it just ends up as background noise.
What really impressed me is that the stat is 4.5 hours of LIVE TV. I occasionally watch the local news while eating breakfast... that averages to maybe 30 minutes per week. That's the only time I ever watch live TV. With DVRs, and netflix / various internet options, I can very rarely find a compelling reason to watch live TV.
The only other time I watched something live was the presidential debates, but that was streamed from the internet. I don't know what category that should fall in.
I have a similar (non-fitbit) watch I use for running. I like it. I understand it's not 100% accurate. It's accurate enough for its cost, and I'm happy with that. If lawsuits like this continue to fly, such products will get more expensive, or harder to find.
I've occasionally thought one feature that would be cool (but not necessary) to have in a fitness smartwatch is live network connectivity. I think the biggest reason it's not being done is that it would increase the physical size, and drain the battery. The core looks like a great compromise. I definitely think this is the kind of thing that will only appeal to the early-adopter kind of tech geeks. In a few years, either people will either decide it's a silly, unnecessary feature, or else the tech will have miniaturized enough to fit it inside the watch itself.
As I recall, the first GPS watch couldn't fit the GPS inside the watch itself, so you had a cellphone-sized brick you had to carry with you. At the time, it was a good compromise, and I think the core is the same idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a smartwatch. I love it. I don't see any reason to buy a new one any time soon. It does all of the things I need it to do. I have no doubt I'll replace my cell phone several times before I consider replacing my smartwatch.
I suspect most people in the smartwatch demographic either already own one, or are waiting for the prices to go down.
Workout accessory? Hardly adds much.
Really? My watch's GPS tells me how far I've run, and my pace. This is a huge benefit if I want to track my progress without always running on exactly the same pre-measured route. Monitoring my heartrate is also a nice feature for tracking my level of exertion, though not as valuable as the GPS part.
I'm not saying a watch is the correct solution for everyone, but for me, and for runners like me, it adds quite a bit.
Apple may get rid of the USB 3.0 port
I've only heard about plans to replace USB-A with USB-C, not to eliminate USB ports. USB-C is an actual standard that already exists. USB-A to USB-C adapters are easy to come by, and as time goes on, more and more devices will be using USB-C. I have no problem with this. In fact, my cell phone already has a USB-C port.
I'm sure road sensors can be helpful, but they can never tell the whole story about the road. If an autonomous car can't detect potholes, flooding, or other unexpected road conditions, then it's not truly autonomous. And I'm not sure what a car with advanced-enough sensors to detect these things would gain from roadside sensors. Yes, it's important to know where the road's location, but knowing the road's condition is at least as important.
From the description, it sounds like they setup real call centers to make the scam possible. A fake call center would be something that purports itself to handle calls, but in actuality, does not.
Astronauts have to be prepared to die. People who sailed to America had to be prepared to die. Explorers in general have to be prepared to die. So what? It would be newsworthy if he said such people would be 100% safe (because that would mean either he had amazing technology, or he turned into a lying jerk).
Fortunately, now there's a sensor that can measure whether the phone has gone up or down.
Some of us use our phones as phones. I have all of the applications I need installed now, weather, a few other things, and nothing since. Smartphones make for shitty computing devices, shitty game devices. They do okay as phones though.
I very rarely use my phone as a phone. However, I even more rarely download new apps. When I first bought my phone, I installed a bunch of apps that I knew I'd use regularly, and have installed very little since then.
So the 3.5mm jack takes up too much space in a device meant to fit in your pocket. I'm not sure I agree with the decision, but I follow the reasoning. And an RJ-45 port for ethernet would have made Macbooks too thick. Yes, this is true, and I have a thunderbolt-to-ethernet adapter plugged into my Macbook at work. What possible reason could there be to eliminate a 3.5mm port on a laptop? Is it too big? Really? My laptop's screen and keyboard don't have to go completely to the edge of the case - I can deal with a small border. I can deal with a few extra cubic centimeters in the computer reserved for various ports if it means I don't have to carry about a special dongle.
While we're at it, how about asking customers how often they use the letter 'x'? Think of how much space could be saved if we just removed that one key! (Don't worry, you can still type 'ks' to get the same phonetic sound.) Now that I think of it, 'c' is redundant too - we kan get by with the letters 'k' and 's' there as well.
If it's really just about size, why not try using a 2.5mm jack instead? At least any converters wouldn't need any proprietary technology. Just because I don't use it all the time doesn't mean I don't need it.
I own a (older) Macbook Air, an Android phone, and a Sandisk mp3 player. I use the same pair of earphones interchangeably between these devices. (Actually, I have a few pairs for different environments.) I've never needed any kind of special dongle (unless you count the charger, though both my phone and mp3 player charge via micro USB). I really like my Macbook, but if they keep pulling crap like this, my next laptop won't be made by Apple.
You can try to deny Google Play access to your handheld's location by opening the Settings app and digging through Apps -> Google Play Store -> Permissions, and flipping the switch for "location." But you'll be told you can't just shut out Google Play services: you have to switch off location services for all apps if you want to block the store from knowing your whereabouts.
Is this something new in Nougat? (Does anyone even run Nougat on anything yet?)
I'm on Marshmallow (6.0.1), and I can turn off location permissions for the Google Play Store, and wasn't "told" anything when I did. Everything else works just fine. I can even turn on location for games or other apps, and they still work, and Google Play still doesn't have access to location. So I'm not sure what the summary is talking about, here.
I'm running Nougat, and could turn off location for Google Play Store exactly as you describe without issue (actually, it was already off on mine). I suspect the article meant Google Play Service.
The article seems to use "Play store" and "Play service" interchangeably, but according to my app list (Android 7.0), they are two different apps. So which is it?
I followed the instructions to turn off google play's permission to use my location, but this was already turned off. Am I missing something? The article only says the "latest Android build".
"A lot of things wrong with the Tesla model S are done correctly (my opinion) in this car... It gets down to my product ideas of balance and getting the most from the least. Try to make things simple and affordable but very adequate. This car hits my sweet spot."
That's great, but I'd love some details. I've never driven a Tesla or a Bolt, so I don't know much about them. I'd love to read an engineer's opinion about their strengths and weaknesses, but this vague quote isn't helpful at all.
Yes, the conclusion sounds reasonable, except it seems to overlook:
1. Affordability. This is improving, but even if we want to, most of us can't afford to replace our current non-electric car with an electric.
2. Charging access. This is also improving, but anyone who relies on street parking won't be able to charge their car at home.
It would be equally reasonable to say that riding in a taxi would meet 90% of drivers' needs. A taxi would get people to where they need to go most of the time. But for most people, it would be prohibitively expensive, and require extra time waiting for the taxi to show up in the first place.
When I type my wrist doesn't move very much. I mostly move my fingers, and use several of them to type. While I can see how a person using the hunt-and-peck method could be tracked with his watch, I think it'd be much more difficult to track what the rest of us type.
Not only will the aerodynamics suck, but by making large parts of the plane removable, there will be a significant increase in weight. And then there's the fact that adding complexity can add points of failure.
The Millennials drive old run down not fit for the road Honda Accords or moms minivan because they still live at home until they're 30.
I drive an old Honda. I could afford much nicer, but why should I bother? The Honda runs great, and gets good gas mileage.
While I can't watch that much TV, I do frequently half-watch shows. I'll have the TV on while doing something else. If the show is particularly interesting, I'll pay attention. But if it isn't, then it just ends up as background noise.
What really impressed me is that the stat is 4.5 hours of LIVE TV. I occasionally watch the local news while eating breakfast... that averages to maybe 30 minutes per week. That's the only time I ever watch live TV. With DVRs, and netflix / various internet options, I can very rarely find a compelling reason to watch live TV.
The only other time I watched something live was the presidential debates, but that was streamed from the internet. I don't know what category that should fall in.
and their jobs all get automated then who is going to be buying the fries?
We should start making robots who can buy french fries!
Throughout history, we have automated many of our jobs. If the next stop is to be served food by robots, so be it. Over time, our economy changes.
I have a similar (non-fitbit) watch I use for running. I like it. I understand it's not 100% accurate. It's accurate enough for its cost, and I'm happy with that. If lawsuits like this continue to fly, such products will get more expensive, or harder to find.
I've occasionally thought one feature that would be cool (but not necessary) to have in a fitness smartwatch is live network connectivity. I think the biggest reason it's not being done is that it would increase the physical size, and drain the battery. The core looks like a great compromise. I definitely think this is the kind of thing that will only appeal to the early-adopter kind of tech geeks. In a few years, either people will either decide it's a silly, unnecessary feature, or else the tech will have miniaturized enough to fit it inside the watch itself.
As I recall, the first GPS watch couldn't fit the GPS inside the watch itself, so you had a cellphone-sized brick you had to carry with you. At the time, it was a good compromise, and I think the core is the same idea.
Why would I go through the effort to install a piece of software, when there are good-quality web-based alternatives like google hangouts?