I am not a sound engineer, but here's my impression of the issue. The maximum volume in the hardware is presumably set against typically expected waveforms. For instance, normally, if you watch a movie, there is no sustained high level sound. When there is no sound at all, the speaker coils and amp can cool off; during speech the background music is quiet or nonexistent and the pauses between words and variations in loudness will allow for further cooling; and so on.
The waveform compression in the volume boost reduces the differences between quieter and louder sounds, and thereby decreases the opportunities for cooling. This is going to be particularly true in the case of sustained playback of music.
If one sets the maximum volume in the hardware or firmware so that the speakers can survive sustained compressed sound, then the result will be that the speakers will be terrible for hearing speech in movies and radio. Granted, this could be fixed with higher quality speakers and better heat sinks, but that would increase cost and the audio system may need to be physically larger, while people like their laptops small and thin.
I guess temperature sensors in the speakers and the amp might help, and/or smart firmware that not only controls the maximum output but reduces output when high volume is sustained.
Another solution is honesty and user education: just explain to users that built-in speakers can be worn out with sustained compressed audio, and leave it to the users to decide how to balance audibility with risks to hardware.
(Like I said, I am not an engineer, but I do make a sound boost open source app for Android, which works by using the equalizer API to do presumably the same thing that VLC does. I put very obvious warnings about possibilities of damage to hearing and hardware in the app, but nonetheless the app was useful for movies and audio books. But using it for sustained loud music would be a bad idea. As of 4.2.1, Google patched the OS not to allow boost sound above default maxima. This protects speakers but is paternalistic and makes movies nearly unwatchable on some devices, I expect. Tradeoffs...)
And both models can make sense to a buyer. I think I do about 98% of my printing on a b+w laser printer with low page costs. Occasionally I have something to print out something in color, typically for the kids. It makes sense to buy a color printer with low up-front costs for such rare use.
Why can't pollsters phrase questions correctly?! Surely no biblical literalists believe that humans existed "since the beginning of time", as a literal reading of Genesis presents them as created on day six.
It depends what you're doing. From time to time, I need to do operations on an array entry *and* its successor (or predecessor). Also, sometimes when you're deleting entries, you want to use a numerical index and iterate from the end to the beginning of a list or array.
One is missing out on information about traffic and pedestrians by doing this, though. Sometimes a pedestrian or cyclist or motorist is where they shouldn't be, and one might not notice them without having observed the intersection for a few seconds *before* the light changed.
If you use Classic Shell, then you get an upgrade: the inflexible closed source feature that was standard to Windows for 17 years is replaced with a much more customizable open source feature. It would be nice if it was bundled with Windows, though.:-)
(To me it's not a change, as I've been using Classic Shell on Win7, too.)
The publishers wouldn't like it, but scholarly authors might well. Many of us care much more about being read than about making money off our books. I'd give all my books away for free if I could, but unfortunately professional reputation requires publishing with major possess and the presses won't allow it.
It would be less trivial if one had something like the Android model where each application (with some exceptions) stores (some of) its data as a separate user, and without root privileges, one can't access the data for the application except by the methods provided by the application.
I vaguely recall that early on in my philosophy career, I produced a lovely manuscript in LaTeX. The journal insisted that I convert it to Word. I put the effort in to do that. Finally, I get the galleys, with my Word file typeset by the journal's typesetters in India. And it was obviously LaTeX that they used at the typesetting end! I was annoyed. But eventually, I just switched to using Word for most things.
However, more recently I've gone back to using LaTeX for a fair amount of my philosophical writing, partly as my writing has got more technical. I've noticed that many journals accept LaTeX as is (I don't know if that's a new thing). Some do require Word. But my thinking is that I typically don't know which journal the paper will end up accepted by, LaTeX is more fun to write in, the paper is easier to adapt into a Beamer presentation (I've found Powerpoint too difficult and cumbersome), the manuscript will look prettier to referees for whatever that may be worth, and if I need to do one final conversion after acceptance, that's annoying (it can take a while, as I have to go through the text sentence by sentence to make sure nothing was screwed up) but not a very big deal.
And perhaps most importantly, if I use LaTeX, my content and style aren't biased by the limitations of Word. For instance, it would be a big nuisance to include a Fitch-style formal logic proof in a paper in Word. So I probably wouldn't bother, even if doing so would help the reader. Likewise, perhaps throwing in a formula or some symbols with subscripts would be stylistically optimal, but because these things are harder to type in Word than in LaTeX, I might not bother ($x_2$ is more natural for me to type than ctrl-i x ctrl-i ctrl-= 2 ctrl-=, and with LaTeX you don't have the problem that if in later editing you later try to insert a comma after it, Word wants to subscript the comma).
Moreover, for collaboration, plain text formats work very well with svn (there are no do doubt better rcs's, but svn is what I'm used to) as I and my coauthor can easily view the latest diffs, either from the commandline or the web. I suppose Google Docs has nice good collaboration features, too, but they aren't an option for me as Google Docs doesn't have the automatic cross-referencing features that Word and LaTeX have and that I tend to rely heavily on (I just tried Fidus and couldn't find cross-referencing for numbered lists, nor a way to make the numbering resume after an interruption of a numbered list).
So, yes, even in the humanities it can be worth using LaTeX, though admittedly much of my work is on the technical end of the humanities (e.g., I prove not entirely trivial theorems).
Some people in movie theaters are parents accompanying their children. And bored by the movie but unable to leave.
Personally, if I am going to use my phone in the movie theater, I like to switch it to the same red-pixels-only mode (using an open source app I made for it), which I normally use for amateur astronomy not to disturb dark adaptation. I don't think dim red screens disturb much. Such modes should be available on all phones, not just some rooted ones.:-)
This may be rather good, but I've felt rather uncomfortable with closed source apps that are track a phone or wipe data, and especially ones that can survive a hard reset, so I spent a few hours and rolled together a super-simple, no-UI app (passwords are hardcoded into the source, so I am distributing this source-only: https://code.google.com/p/roottracker/ ) that does basic phone tracking and wiping via SMS. I tried to make the source simple enough that one can easily verify the lack of backdoors.
I see no compelling need to move from my S2 running 2.3.6, and in fact I see some reason not to: the lack of a dedicated search button on the S4 (and S3). I like the idea of a consistent interface so that in every well-designed app where searching is relevant, I can search by pressing in exactly the same place. Plus, I like the fact that I can launch my favorite apps by holding down the search button for a second (though that does take an extra app). This is fairly minor, but from my point of view so are most of the improvements.
Plus I'd have to figure out how to legally root a new device. It took me months to figure out how to legally root my S2. (The standard ways of rooting of the S2 involved installing a custom ROM, but custom ROMs would contain copyrighted Samsung-copyrighted components, and hence downloading them is at least grayish.)
You might want to check the license as maybe the borrowing from work was already legit. IANAL, but the EULA with the downloadable CS2 says: "2.4 Portable or Home Computer Use. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer."
While most users most of the time don't need the extra features of Word, some users need them much of the time, and I expect many serious users would benefit from learning about them and using them on occasion.
In my own discipline (analytic philosophy), it is very common to have numbered propositions in articles, which are then referred to by number. The right way to do this in Word is to set up an automatically numbered list that allows for the list items to be noncontiguous but still numbered sequentially, and then to refer to the numbered propositions via the cross-referencing feature. This way, as you insert more numbered propositions while editing, the numbers and references get automatically updated. As far as I can see, Google Docs supports neither noncontiguous lists nor cross-referencing. That said, it is my feeling that while most people in my discipline use Word (a few use LaTeX, and I use it myself for symbol-heavy articles), most don't know about these features and just number and cross-reference manually.
For non-fiction writing where one needs to refer to other chapters, sections or footnotes (e.g., "See footnote 17, above" or "As we shall see in Section 4.3.1.a"), cross-referencing is pretty much essential if one wants to avoid error prone manual references, fixing which up can be nasty if the editor calls for revisions. Again, that's a reason to use LaTeX, but there is no need for LaTeX given that Word's alt-I,N does this quite well.
Assigning keys to special symbols is also very useful--sometimes I don't want to bother with LaTeX for something that just has some symbols from the Symbol font, but I certainly don't to be pressing alt-I,S and using the mouse to select the symbol (or alt-I,S,Tab,arrows,enter) each time, and a keyboard shortcut is just what the doctor ordered.
And while most of the time, macros aren't needed, there are times when they greatly reduce labor. For instance, recently I indexed one of my books. To do that, I used a perl script that uses in-text ASCII codes marking index entries and page breaks on the Word file back-generated from the galley PDF (the press refused to give me a copy of their Quark or InDesign file). But I had to insert all those ASCII codes to mark areas of text to reference, e.g., {{IndexEntryA:}}Text to which the index entry should point{{:IndexEntryA}}. Typing in the codes would be error prone. So I wrote some super-simple macros which greatly reduced labor. It still was a ton of work, but without macros it would have been very hard. How often do I index? Only once every couple of years when I have a book coming out. But when I do, I need all the help I can get from the software.
And there are little conveniences of macros. I was once writing something that didn't have much in the way of symbols, but kept on having italic variable letters with numerical subscripts in the text. I could have switched to LaTeX, but I liked writing in Word and that was about the only bit of technical symbolism I routinely needed. Without macros, a typical such sequence (T subscript 1, say) would be: ctrl-I, T, ctrl-I, ctrl-=, 1, ctrl-=. Easy to slip up, and a nuisance. With macros, I could just type T1, alt-S, and it would format it correctly. (A more sophisticated macro would check whether the subscript was numerical or a variable letter and italicize the latter but not the former. I can't remember if I had it do that.) The macro made it possible to more fluently, without the annoyance of slowing down to format subscripted variables whenever they occurred.
Whenever one is doing anything repetitively, a macro will help. I suppose for simpler cases when it's just a keyboard shortcut, one could use Google Docs and a keyboard macro program on one's desktop. But sometimes the macros need to aware of what's in the word processor text.
I wonder if they're going to enforce this no-financial-interest-in-competing-product rule with regard to academic books. In disciplines where book writing is expected of scholars (most of the humanities, but much less so in the sciences), most of the best qualified reviewers will themselves be scholars who have a book on a related topic or be working towards having a book on a related topic.
The EU press release says that people can still sue for civil remedies, as these aren't preempted by the fine, and that the EU decision can be used as a proof of fact in court. I assume there will be something like class action suits now, or does Europe not have these?
You may be right about most cases, but not all cases.
Some people might prefer older versions because Google from time to time disables an API thereby breaking some app important to them. For instance, in JB, Google made it impossible for non-root non-system apps to access system logs, which kills many apps that monitor the logs to check for system conditions like app launch (e.g., I have an open source app that lets you set CPU, orientation and other settings differently for different apps; on JB, alas, it needs root as there is no non-root way to detect app launches). In at least some of the 4.2 builds, it seems that apps can no longer insert global sound effects, which kills global equalizer or audio boost apps, which again may be quite important to a user. Google may have good security reasons for introducing such changes (though I think they should let the user decide), but a user may also have good reasons for sticking with the older OS version.
There may also be low-level apps that do undocumented stuff and that are important to a user that are broken more innocently by newer OS versions. For instance, last I checked, ChainFire3D's night mode, which turns all screen colors to red-and-black on rooted devices, doesn't work on ICS. Yet if one does amateur astronomy, something like ChainFire3D's night mode is really important. (I wrote an open source alternative that works on rooted ICS, but it's only for some Samsung phones.)
There will also be minor convenience preferences. For instance, I hate what Google did with the recent apps list in ICS--I don't see the point of oversize previews of apps that you have to scroll through, as it's much faster to have a single window of icons like in earlier versions--one tap instead of slide and tap. No doubt many users like the recent apps list.
Finally, if an OS version is close to rock-solid on one's phone, and does almost everything one wants, it may not be worth the risk of new instabilities to upgrade.
In my own case, I am deliberately sticking to GB on my Galaxy S2. (My wife has ICS on hers. Her S2 is far less stable than mine, even though I have tons of apps on mine doing all sorts of custom stuff. It could be a hardware issue, though.)
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a sound engineer, but here's my impression of the issue. The maximum volume in the hardware is presumably set against typically expected waveforms. For instance, normally, if you watch a movie, there is no sustained high level sound. When there is no sound at all, the speaker coils and amp can cool off; during speech the background music is quiet or nonexistent and the pauses between words and variations in loudness will allow for further cooling; and so on.
The waveform compression in the volume boost reduces the differences between quieter and louder sounds, and thereby decreases the opportunities for cooling. This is going to be particularly true in the case of sustained playback of music.
If one sets the maximum volume in the hardware or firmware so that the speakers can survive sustained compressed sound, then the result will be that the speakers will be terrible for hearing speech in movies and radio. Granted, this could be fixed with higher quality speakers and better heat sinks, but that would increase cost and the audio system may need to be physically larger, while people like their laptops small and thin.
I guess temperature sensors in the speakers and the amp might help, and/or smart firmware that not only controls the maximum output but reduces output when high volume is sustained.
Another solution is honesty and user education: just explain to users that built-in speakers can be worn out with sustained compressed audio, and leave it to the users to decide how to balance audibility with risks to hardware.
(Like I said, I am not an engineer, but I do make a sound boost open source app for Android, which works by using the equalizer API to do presumably the same thing that VLC does. I put very obvious warnings about possibilities of damage to hearing and hardware in the app, but nonetheless the app was useful for movies and audio books. But using it for sustained loud music would be a bad idea. As of 4.2.1, Google patched the OS not to allow boost sound above default maxima. This protects speakers but is paternalistic and makes movies nearly unwatchable on some devices, I expect. Tradeoffs...)
And both models can make sense to a buyer. I think I do about 98% of my printing on a b+w laser printer with low page costs. Occasionally I have something to print out something in color, typically for the kids. It makes sense to buy a color printer with low up-front costs for such rare use.
Why can't pollsters phrase questions correctly?! Surely no biblical literalists believe that humans existed "since the beginning of time", as a literal reading of Genesis presents them as created on day six.
Much more effective as a threat than a club, though, if the other party doesn't know that the ammunition is missing.
It depends what you're doing. From time to time, I need to do operations on an array entry *and* its successor (or predecessor). Also, sometimes when you're deleting entries, you want to use a numerical index and iterate from the end to the beginning of a list or array.
Actually, a dedicated GPS will often have all the maps in memory.
One is missing out on information about traffic and pedestrians by doing this, though. Sometimes a pedestrian or cyclist or motorist is where they shouldn't be, and one might not notice them without having observed the intersection for a few seconds *before* the light changed.
If you use Classic Shell, then you get an upgrade: the inflexible closed source feature that was standard to Windows for 17 years is replaced with a much more customizable open source feature. It would be nice if it was bundled with Windows, though. :-)
(To me it's not a change, as I've been using Classic Shell on Win7, too.)
The publishers wouldn't like it, but scholarly authors might well. Many of us care much more about being read than about making money off our books. I'd give all my books away for free if I could, but unfortunately professional reputation requires publishing with major possess and the presses won't allow it.
The muzzle velocity is 40 m/s according to the article, i.e., 131 ft/sec or 89 mi/h. I wouldn't want to be hit with that.
The 3% figure refers to the kinetic energy, and perhaps reflects a less massive projectile than the .22 shoots.
Changing passwords typically requires confirming the password, and the auto-fill typically doesn't work for that confirmation field in my experience.
It would be less trivial if one had something like the Android model where each application (with some exceptions) stores (some of) its data as a separate user, and without root privileges, one can't access the data for the application except by the methods provided by the application.
I vaguely recall that early on in my philosophy career, I produced a lovely manuscript in LaTeX. The journal insisted that I convert it to Word. I put the effort in to do that. Finally, I get the galleys, with my Word file typeset by the journal's typesetters in India. And it was obviously LaTeX that they used at the typesetting end! I was annoyed. But eventually, I just switched to using Word for most things.
However, more recently I've gone back to using LaTeX for a fair amount of my philosophical writing, partly as my writing has got more technical. I've noticed that many journals accept LaTeX as is (I don't know if that's a new thing). Some do require Word. But my thinking is that I typically don't know which journal the paper will end up accepted by, LaTeX is more fun to write in, the paper is easier to adapt into a Beamer presentation (I've found Powerpoint too difficult and cumbersome), the manuscript will look prettier to referees for whatever that may be worth, and if I need to do one final conversion after acceptance, that's annoying (it can take a while, as I have to go through the text sentence by sentence to make sure nothing was screwed up) but not a very big deal.
And perhaps most importantly, if I use LaTeX, my content and style aren't biased by the limitations of Word. For instance, it would be a big nuisance to include a Fitch-style formal logic proof in a paper in Word. So I probably wouldn't bother, even if doing so would help the reader. Likewise, perhaps throwing in a formula or some symbols with subscripts would be stylistically optimal, but because these things are harder to type in Word than in LaTeX, I might not bother ($x_2$ is more natural for me to type than ctrl-i x ctrl-i ctrl-= 2 ctrl-=, and with LaTeX you don't have the problem that if in later editing you later try to insert a comma after it, Word wants to subscript the comma).
Moreover, for collaboration, plain text formats work very well with svn (there are no do doubt better rcs's, but svn is what I'm used to) as I and my coauthor can easily view the latest diffs, either from the commandline or the web. I suppose Google Docs has nice good collaboration features, too, but they aren't an option for me as Google Docs doesn't have the automatic cross-referencing features that Word and LaTeX have and that I tend to rely heavily on (I just tried Fidus and couldn't find cross-referencing for numbered lists, nor a way to make the numbering resume after an interruption of a numbered list).
So, yes, even in the humanities it can be worth using LaTeX, though admittedly much of my work is on the technical end of the humanities (e.g., I prove not entirely trivial theorems).
Some people in movie theaters are parents accompanying their children. And bored by the movie but unable to leave.
Personally, if I am going to use my phone in the movie theater, I like to switch it to the same red-pixels-only mode (using an open source app I made for it), which I normally use for amateur astronomy not to disturb dark adaptation. I don't think dim red screens disturb much. Such modes should be available on all phones, not just some rooted ones. :-)
i remember reading that breezes above body temperature actually heat you up.
This may be rather good, but I've felt rather uncomfortable with closed source apps that are track a phone or wipe data, and especially ones that can survive a hard reset, so I spent a few hours and rolled together a super-simple, no-UI app (passwords are hardcoded into the source, so I am distributing this source-only: https://code.google.com/p/roottracker/ ) that does basic phone tracking and wiping via SMS. I tried to make the source simple enough that one can easily verify the lack of backdoors.
Though for sufficiently serious problems, one can have recalls many years later.
I see no compelling need to move from my S2 running 2.3.6, and in fact I see some reason not to: the lack of a dedicated search button on the S4 (and S3). I like the idea of a consistent interface so that in every well-designed app where searching is relevant, I can search by pressing in exactly the same place. Plus, I like the fact that I can launch my favorite apps by holding down the search button for a second (though that does take an extra app). This is fairly minor, but from my point of view so are most of the improvements.
Plus I'd have to figure out how to legally root a new device. It took me months to figure out how to legally root my S2. (The standard ways of rooting of the S2 involved installing a custom ROM, but custom ROMs would contain copyrighted Samsung-copyrighted components, and hence downloading them is at least grayish.)
You might want to check the license as maybe the borrowing from work was already legit. IANAL, but the EULA with the downloadable CS2 says: "2.4 Portable or Home Computer Use. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer."
While most users most of the time don't need the extra features of Word, some users need them much of the time, and I expect many serious users would benefit from learning about them and using them on occasion.
In my own discipline (analytic philosophy), it is very common to have numbered propositions in articles, which are then referred to by number. The right way to do this in Word is to set up an automatically numbered list that allows for the list items to be noncontiguous but still numbered sequentially, and then to refer to the numbered propositions via the cross-referencing feature. This way, as you insert more numbered propositions while editing, the numbers and references get automatically updated. As far as I can see, Google Docs supports neither noncontiguous lists nor cross-referencing. That said, it is my feeling that while most people in my discipline use Word (a few use LaTeX, and I use it myself for symbol-heavy articles), most don't know about these features and just number and cross-reference manually.
For non-fiction writing where one needs to refer to other chapters, sections or footnotes (e.g., "See footnote 17, above" or "As we shall see in Section 4.3.1.a"), cross-referencing is pretty much essential if one wants to avoid error prone manual references, fixing which up can be nasty if the editor calls for revisions. Again, that's a reason to use LaTeX, but there is no need for LaTeX given that Word's alt-I,N does this quite well.
Assigning keys to special symbols is also very useful--sometimes I don't want to bother with LaTeX for something that just has some symbols from the Symbol font, but I certainly don't to be pressing alt-I,S and using the mouse to select the symbol (or alt-I,S,Tab,arrows,enter) each time, and a keyboard shortcut is just what the doctor ordered.
And while most of the time, macros aren't needed, there are times when they greatly reduce labor. For instance, recently I indexed one of my books. To do that, I used a perl script that uses in-text ASCII codes marking index entries and page breaks on the Word file back-generated from the galley PDF (the press refused to give me a copy of their Quark or InDesign file). But I had to insert all those ASCII codes to mark areas of text to reference, e.g., {{IndexEntryA:}}Text to which the index entry should point{{:IndexEntryA}}. Typing in the codes would be error prone. So I wrote some super-simple macros which greatly reduced labor. It still was a ton of work, but without macros it would have been very hard. How often do I index? Only once every couple of years when I have a book coming out. But when I do, I need all the help I can get from the software.
And there are little conveniences of macros. I was once writing something that didn't have much in the way of symbols, but kept on having italic variable letters with numerical subscripts in the text. I could have switched to LaTeX, but I liked writing in Word and that was about the only bit of technical symbolism I routinely needed. Without macros, a typical such sequence (T subscript 1, say) would be: ctrl-I, T, ctrl-I, ctrl-=, 1, ctrl-=. Easy to slip up, and a nuisance. With macros, I could just type T1, alt-S, and it would format it correctly. (A more sophisticated macro would check whether the subscript was numerical or a variable letter and italicize the latter but not the former. I can't remember if I had it do that.) The macro made it possible to more fluently, without the annoyance of slowing down to format subscripted variables whenever they occurred.
Whenever one is doing anything repetitively, a macro will help. I suppose for simpler cases when it's just a keyboard shortcut, one could use Google Docs and a keyboard macro program on one's desktop. But sometimes the macros need to aware of what's in the word processor text.
I wonder if they're going to enforce this no-financial-interest-in-competing-product rule with regard to academic books. In disciplines where book writing is expected of scholars (most of the humanities, but much less so in the sciences), most of the best qualified reviewers will themselves be scholars who have a book on a related topic or be working towards having a book on a related topic.
Almost certainly you're right. But there did used to be vector monitors. It seems rather unlikely to me that we'd go back to them, but who knows?
The EU press release says that people can still sue for civil remedies, as these aren't preempted by the fine, and that the EU decision can be used as a proof of fact in court. I assume there will be something like class action suits now, or does Europe not have these?
You may be right about most cases, but not all cases.
Some people might prefer older versions because Google from time to time disables an API thereby breaking some app important to them. For instance, in JB, Google made it impossible for non-root non-system apps to access system logs, which kills many apps that monitor the logs to check for system conditions like app launch (e.g., I have an open source app that lets you set CPU, orientation and other settings differently for different apps; on JB, alas, it needs root as there is no non-root way to detect app launches). In at least some of the 4.2 builds, it seems that apps can no longer insert global sound effects, which kills global equalizer or audio boost apps, which again may be quite important to a user. Google may have good security reasons for introducing such changes (though I think they should let the user decide), but a user may also have good reasons for sticking with the older OS version.
There may also be low-level apps that do undocumented stuff and that are important to a user that are broken more innocently by newer OS versions. For instance, last I checked, ChainFire3D's night mode, which turns all screen colors to red-and-black on rooted devices, doesn't work on ICS. Yet if one does amateur astronomy, something like ChainFire3D's night mode is really important. (I wrote an open source alternative that works on rooted ICS, but it's only for some Samsung phones.)
There will also be minor convenience preferences. For instance, I hate what Google did with the recent apps list in ICS--I don't see the point of oversize previews of apps that you have to scroll through, as it's much faster to have a single window of icons like in earlier versions--one tap instead of slide and tap. No doubt many users like the recent apps list.
Finally, if an OS version is close to rock-solid on one's phone, and does almost everything one wants, it may not be worth the risk of new instabilities to upgrade.
In my own case, I am deliberately sticking to GB on my Galaxy S2. (My wife has ICS on hers. Her S2 is far less stable than mine, even though I have tons of apps on mine doing all sorts of custom stuff. It could be a hardware issue, though.)
Whether a statement is a lie does not depend on whether the statement is true or not, but on what the speaker believes.