My understanding is that gravity irregularities (caused by the lobular shape, as opposed to a spherical shape) are going to be one of the biggest challenges. How do you calculate the correct amount of thrust when gravity decreases as you get closer to your landing spot? All these things need to be accounted for, and there are plenty of unknowns still.
Shame we can't watch it real-time... that would be a popcorn moment no doubt.
Unfortunately, with fraternal twins, there are two umbilical cords and two placentas... so there can be variance in nutrition and oxygen... heck, even with identical twins oxygen levels can vary. Still, it WOULD be an interesting study.
The problem is the clause isn't under it's own title in the contract, but instead is buried in the legal mumbo-jumbo fine print... If users knew that the clause was in the contract they WOULD walk away... but that's the strategy of the lawyers and that's why so many legal contracts are written in unintelligable legal-speak. So the people who do try to read them can't understand them, and the majority of people assume "It's just a few dollars worth of product, why would this contract have any teeth in it?" This law wouldn't be necessary if there were laws requiring contracts to be written in simple language. I think there is a line between people making dumb uninformed choices, and lawyers writing contracts with predatory language. This law is addressing the predatory nature of these contracts, because it's human nature to expect that the contract contains exactly the terms that are commonly understood. It would be like a car salesman chatting you up all day about a 2% interest rate that they can get for you through their financing... but then buried deep in the paperwork is a 7% rate... would that be legal? Yes. Should that be legal? I don't think so. It's why more and more, people are recording conversations (I'm looking at you Comcast) when they enter into some kind of contract or agreement... to protect against being told one thing, then being held contractually to something else.
This whole thing reminds me of a list I saw floating around the internet about things people had agreed to give up in a contract. It had things like "immortal soul" and "firstborn child" on it. Hilarious, and illustrative of the point.
I kinda agree with this... Google is only telling you WHERE something is... they're not the ones infringing copyright. The problem here is Google's monopoly on search... if we had more good search providers this DMCA crap wouldn't have looked like such an easy win for MPAA and RIAA. I support DMCA takedowns for actually infringing content... but I really dislike the idea of takedowns of search listings.
No by my logic you are now being a misandrist (or at least attempting to be). Now if you'd just call me Hitler so we can conclude this petulant argument.
+1 This! We're already guaranteed our freedom of speech through the first amendment, but having the cash to fight it can be tough for many people. Not to mention that in the case of financial transactions, often times the business gets the upper hand because they can report you to credit agencies, and then you've got even more garbage to contend with... the penalty clause for trying to put language like that in a contract is my favorite part of this whole thing.
No, worldthinker is right, and your provided example is perfect for illustrating the problem: Using a feminine attribute to knock a guy or "question his manhood" is exactly the problem, and it's a basic but functional definition of misogyny.
If a female did something really awesome, and a bystander said "OMG that was awesome!!!! How do you even cross your legs?" then that bystander is using a masculine attribute (huge balls) to reinforce the complement. The premise that masculine attribute = good, and feminine attribute = bad is the problem we are talking about. Stating that you can call anyone a "cunt" and it's equally damming to a male or female does not somehow elevate the insult above the level of misogyny.
I usually don't correct people on their grammar, but it's pronounced "METRIC SHITTONS.' Please people... get it right before Weird Al picks up on this and eviscerates us all!
While this is funny, Apple never promised a secure porn service... they are promising a secure payment system. It's possible they'll mess this up, but I'm willing to bet they'll become one of the best mobile payment systems.
I agree, and there is still TONS of innovation to be done on that front. Here's my short list:
Batteries are getting better and better energy density, but they still need to double. Wireless charging in the armrest of your car, and the palm rest of your keyboard. (my watch would NEVER die if I had those two things) Better energy efficiency in display tech Better energy efficiency in cellular tech (probably requires spectrum change, but I'm no engineer) Better energy efficiency in processor tech
We've seen great advances in all of these areas... we just need to keep going, and then someone needs to put it all together.
Apple is always cautious. They don't enter a market until they are (pretty) sure they can dominate it. Maybe that's why they stayed away from real wireless charging... maybe they weren't able to get the tech good enough, maybe they didn't have the right patents... but either way, once the tech has stabilized, you can bet your behind that apple will incorporate it into their devices. Just like they did with NFC payment. Obviously it remains to be seen, but as all those critics above pointed out, it's a feature that other phones have had for a long time... I'll bet Apple's implementation will be one of the best. They weren't the first MP3 player on the market, they weren't the first cell phone on the market, but when they choose to enter the market, they typically perform pretty well.
Don't like storing your credit cards on your phone (not in the cloud like many posters above have stated), don't store CCs on your phone. Upside: you can rock the Castanza and get marketed to by Bellroy.
The way I understood the payment system, your CC details are stored in a secure chip in the phone, separate from all the other data. The actual transaction is authorized by a one time use code, so the likelihood of your CC info being stolen is far far lower than the risk when carrying a wallet full of cards... it's the one feature I think I like most about the 6.
Don't like such a big phone? Buy a 5s instead. Upside: you just got a huge discount! Don't regularly wear a watch? Don't buy a $350 Watch that has to be charged every day. Upside: saved $350 Don't like U2? What kind of a soulless bastard are you?
My take is this: Apple wants to bring the wristwatch back? Good for them. I'm intrigued, but not $350 intrigued. Although I'm not a buyer, I wish apple the best of luck, because I predict that in the not too distant future, things will flip-flop with phones: The thing on your wrist will provide the connectivity for the other devices you carry. Maybe you have a big iPad for large format display and lots of typing or gaming, maybe you have a smaller handset for display to keep things a little more portable while still getting some resolution. But either way, the data "hub" will be the watch on your wrist, and will be capable of complete autonomous function. So when you want to pay for something, leave your "big display" at home, when you want to go for a run, leave your "big display" at home, when you want to go swimming (assuming the watch gets the waterproof treatment that is starting to come into vogue) leave your "big display" at home.
That is a future I can get into, where the one device that never leaves my side is the least intrusive one, while also being the most capable one. Everything else just augments it's capability. Then I'll be a buyer! Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I'll pony up for a 6+ next year though... I for one DO want a bigger display.
It's just software... So mount the watch upside down with regard to the band, put it on your left wrist and tell the software you're a lefty. Is that so hard?
I think you have one erroneous assumption here: Not all flyers will have access to a frequent flyer program so long as the functional word is "frequent." I fly about once every other year. I don't qualify for any kind of FF benefits. I solve this by specifically requesting the rear-most exit row. This guarantees me the legroom I need, and if the airline allows reclining seats I'll get one. It's the only way to survive... because at 5'11" the regular economy seats can almost be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
Pre-conditions for the price-demand curve??? There are only two: Monopoly and Duopoly. Internet providers almost always fall under these conditions... that's why they are regulated. Pre-conditions of the price-demand curve for cell phone insurance is a straw-man argument.
You cite Comcast's underhanded deception of their customers as evidence? I fail to see any parallel between Comcast and your situation with your handset.
There are DOZENS of carriers, and in most cases, you don't NEED a carrier to get a replacement handset. My local online classified system has hundreds of devices available, and I could have one in my hot little hand in 30 minutes if I wanted. You have stacked so many fallacies on top of each other that it's difficult for you to see the plainness of the situation: It is not a huge financial burden to self-insure your device... just buy a second one and you can switch devices in a matter of minutes. If you don't want to do that, then buy one on the open market. This solution is probably cheaper than perpetually paying the insurance premium to your carrier. If you buy the insurance package from the phone provider, you are bound by those terms. I currently don't buy insurance on my phone, but I have in the past... and when I did, the provider gave me a pamphlet that stated all the terms of the insurance policy. If you bought an insurance policy for your phone without understanding the terms of coverage and remediation, who's fault is that? If their terms weren't sufficient (can't deliver a replacement fast enough) then go somewhere else.
I'm not going to waste my time looking for a citation, but I'm pretty sure you could find SOME company that would give you a premium insurance plan that would replace your phone as fast as you want, but I imagine the cost of such a policy would be greater than just buying two devices up front.
The best I can do is distill your argument down to this: You are unhappy with the terms of service on your phone replacement plan. You project your own ignorance of the terms of your insurance contract onto others by making this unfounded statement: "most users have no idea when walk out of the store with a new phone, whether the store would give them a loaner phone(sic)." You possibly STILL don't understand that the cellular carrier who sold you the insurance policy, did so as a proxy, and that the company who insures your phone is most likely a 3rd party (citation: every insurance policy I have purchased for a mobile phone was through a 3rd party insurer, even though the transaction took place at the cellular carrier's sales floor). You hold the cellular carrier responsible for your dissatisfaction with an insurance contract to which the cellular carrier is not a party.
Have I summed that up correctly?
My advice to you is this: Be a better consumer. Understand the terms of a contract you enter into before signing or paying, and live by those terms. Understand that mitigating risk does happen at the societal level, but it does so FOR the society, not the individual. I you want to mitigate your individual risk, take action yourself, don't rely on others to mitigate your personal risk. And finally, my most fervent advice to you is this: Improve your situational awareness. When guys in a rental yacht pull up next to your inflatable dinghy and start chatting you up in an attempt to commandeer your bikini clad women... do not be fooled. Keep calm and row on.
Now we're getting down to it... why didn't you just start by saying "I wish I could pay extra for a premium replacement plan that allowed me to choose in advance, a phone handset of my liking, but leave it at the nearest convenient cellular retailer for the inevitable eventuality that I put my phone in the drink, so I don't have to wait 24 hours for a replacement handset."
Instead you hit us with the traditional TL;DR.
One concept that I think you are missing still is this: the market HAS REACHED THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION! We currently (and nearly always) sit at the balance point of what people are willing to pay for a service, and what a provider wants to charge for said service. Economics 101: Price curve meets demand curve and falls in love... you know the story right?
Who is the "we" that is going to mitigate the cost? How is "legislating that the store to do more than they do now" in any way an act of mitigation? Have you considered the cost of enforcement? That's just more of my tax money that you are wasting!
You have not answered the most critical question that has been posed over and over again by myself and others: Who is going to bear the huge costs of forcing stores to carry loaner phones? How is this profitable for the owners of the cellular store? How do you offset the cost of stocking several "loaner" units when they become obsolete and can't be sold? The store is going to pass the cost on to the customers, which means that in part, I end up subsidizing your dumb ass for not being able to take care of your personal belongings.
The way you phrase things makes me think you are angling for some kind of consumer protection sympathy, but you don't realize that this is not protecting consumers... it's protecting consumers who made poor choices in the face of obvious risk. As has been stated above, if you want an instant replacement plan for your phone... buy two. Asking the entire market to help you bear the cost of insuring your device is a form of socialism.
Slashdot Mirror
http://youtu.be/Sme4BaANIxg
My understanding is that gravity irregularities (caused by the lobular shape, as opposed to a spherical shape) are going to be one of the biggest challenges. How do you calculate the correct amount of thrust when gravity decreases as you get closer to your landing spot? All these things need to be accounted for, and there are plenty of unknowns still.
Shame we can't watch it real-time... that would be a popcorn moment no doubt.
Unfortunately, with fraternal twins, there are two umbilical cords and two placentas... so there can be variance in nutrition and oxygen... heck, even with identical twins oxygen levels can vary. Still, it WOULD be an interesting study.
The problem is the clause isn't under it's own title in the contract, but instead is buried in the legal mumbo-jumbo fine print... If users knew that the clause was in the contract they WOULD walk away... but that's the strategy of the lawyers and that's why so many legal contracts are written in unintelligable legal-speak. So the people who do try to read them can't understand them, and the majority of people assume "It's just a few dollars worth of product, why would this contract have any teeth in it?" This law wouldn't be necessary if there were laws requiring contracts to be written in simple language. I think there is a line between people making dumb uninformed choices, and lawyers writing contracts with predatory language. This law is addressing the predatory nature of these contracts, because it's human nature to expect that the contract contains exactly the terms that are commonly understood. It would be like a car salesman chatting you up all day about a 2% interest rate that they can get for you through their financing... but then buried deep in the paperwork is a 7% rate... would that be legal? Yes. Should that be legal? I don't think so. It's why more and more, people are recording conversations (I'm looking at you Comcast) when they enter into some kind of contract or agreement... to protect against being told one thing, then being held contractually to something else.
This whole thing reminds me of a list I saw floating around the internet about things people had agreed to give up in a contract. It had things like "immortal soul" and "firstborn child" on it. Hilarious, and illustrative of the point.
I kinda agree with this... Google is only telling you WHERE something is... they're not the ones infringing copyright. The problem here is Google's monopoly on search... if we had more good search providers this DMCA crap wouldn't have looked like such an easy win for MPAA and RIAA. I support DMCA takedowns for actually infringing content... but I really dislike the idea of takedowns of search listings.
No by my logic you are now being a misandrist (or at least attempting to be). Now if you'd just call me Hitler so we can conclude this petulant argument.
+1 This! We're already guaranteed our freedom of speech through the first amendment, but having the cash to fight it can be tough for many people. Not to mention that in the case of financial transactions, often times the business gets the upper hand because they can report you to credit agencies, and then you've got even more garbage to contend with... the penalty clause for trying to put language like that in a contract is my favorite part of this whole thing.
Here is an example from my home state, Utah:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/n...
This crap is actually happening a lot! Its one of the rare instances where I hope the nation follows Cali.
Just because it is local lingo doesn't make it right.
No, worldthinker is right, and your provided example is perfect for illustrating the problem: Using a feminine attribute to knock a guy or "question his manhood" is exactly the problem, and it's a basic but functional definition of misogyny.
If a female did something really awesome, and a bystander said "OMG that was awesome!!!! How do you even cross your legs?" then that bystander is using a masculine attribute (huge balls) to reinforce the complement. The premise that masculine attribute = good, and feminine attribute = bad is the problem we are talking about. Stating that you can call anyone a "cunt" and it's equally damming to a male or female does not somehow elevate the insult above the level of misogyny.
I will restate: Get some perspective.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you down just for your misogyny. Get some perspective please.
I usually don't correct people on their grammar, but it's pronounced "METRIC SHITTONS.' Please people... get it right before Weird Al picks up on this and eviscerates us all!
Once again, its not about the technology, its about combining the technology with a smashingly good business relationship.
Amen brother! (or sister as the case may be)
This is how it gets done!
While this is funny, Apple never promised a secure porn service... they are promising a secure payment system. It's possible they'll mess this up, but I'm willing to bet they'll become one of the best mobile payment systems.
I agree, and there is still TONS of innovation to be done on that front. Here's my short list:
Batteries are getting better and better energy density, but they still need to double.
Wireless charging in the armrest of your car, and the palm rest of your keyboard. (my watch would NEVER die if I had those two things)
Better energy efficiency in display tech
Better energy efficiency in cellular tech (probably requires spectrum change, but I'm no engineer)
Better energy efficiency in processor tech
We've seen great advances in all of these areas... we just need to keep going, and then someone needs to put it all together.
Apple is always cautious. They don't enter a market until they are (pretty) sure they can dominate it. Maybe that's why they stayed away from real wireless charging... maybe they weren't able to get the tech good enough, maybe they didn't have the right patents... but either way, once the tech has stabilized, you can bet your behind that apple will incorporate it into their devices. Just like they did with NFC payment. Obviously it remains to be seen, but as all those critics above pointed out, it's a feature that other phones have had for a long time... I'll bet Apple's implementation will be one of the best. They weren't the first MP3 player on the market, they weren't the first cell phone on the market, but when they choose to enter the market, they typically perform pretty well.
Oh.... I forgot one:
Don't like storing your credit cards on your phone (not in the cloud like many posters above have stated), don't store CCs on your phone. Upside: you can rock the Castanza and get marketed to by Bellroy.
The way I understood the payment system, your CC details are stored in a secure chip in the phone, separate from all the other data. The actual transaction is authorized by a one time use code, so the likelihood of your CC info being stolen is far far lower than the risk when carrying a wallet full of cards... it's the one feature I think I like most about the 6.
So much doom and gloom. Here's my take:
Don't like such a big phone? Buy a 5s instead. Upside: you just got a huge discount!
Don't regularly wear a watch? Don't buy a $350 Watch that has to be charged every day. Upside: saved $350
Don't like U2? What kind of a soulless bastard are you?
My take is this: Apple wants to bring the wristwatch back? Good for them. I'm intrigued, but not $350 intrigued. Although I'm not a buyer, I wish apple the best of luck, because I predict that in the not too distant future, things will flip-flop with phones: The thing on your wrist will provide the connectivity for the other devices you carry. Maybe you have a big iPad for large format display and lots of typing or gaming, maybe you have a smaller handset for display to keep things a little more portable while still getting some resolution. But either way, the data "hub" will be the watch on your wrist, and will be capable of complete autonomous function. So when you want to pay for something, leave your "big display" at home, when you want to go for a run, leave your "big display" at home, when you want to go swimming (assuming the watch gets the waterproof treatment that is starting to come into vogue) leave your "big display" at home.
That is a future I can get into, where the one device that never leaves my side is the least intrusive one, while also being the most capable one. Everything else just augments it's capability. Then I'll be a buyer! Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I'll pony up for a 6+ next year though... I for one DO want a bigger display.
It's just software... So mount the watch upside down with regard to the band, put it on your left wrist and tell the software you're a lefty. Is that so hard?
I think you have one erroneous assumption here: Not all flyers will have access to a frequent flyer program so long as the functional word is "frequent." I fly about once every other year. I don't qualify for any kind of FF benefits. I solve this by specifically requesting the rear-most exit row. This guarantees me the legroom I need, and if the airline allows reclining seats I'll get one. It's the only way to survive... because at 5'11" the regular economy seats can almost be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
GlaDOS? Is that you?
..... he says while posting AC.
Pre-conditions for the price-demand curve??? There are only two: Monopoly and Duopoly. Internet providers almost always fall under these conditions... that's why they are regulated. Pre-conditions of the price-demand curve for cell phone insurance is a straw-man argument.
You cite Comcast's underhanded deception of their customers as evidence? I fail to see any parallel between Comcast and your situation with your handset.
There are DOZENS of carriers, and in most cases, you don't NEED a carrier to get a replacement handset. My local online classified system has hundreds of devices available, and I could have one in my hot little hand in 30 minutes if I wanted. You have stacked so many fallacies on top of each other that it's difficult for you to see the plainness of the situation: It is not a huge financial burden to self-insure your device... just buy a second one and you can switch devices in a matter of minutes. If you don't want to do that, then buy one on the open market. This solution is probably cheaper than perpetually paying the insurance premium to your carrier. If you buy the insurance package from the phone provider, you are bound by those terms. I currently don't buy insurance on my phone, but I have in the past... and when I did, the provider gave me a pamphlet that stated all the terms of the insurance policy. If you bought an insurance policy for your phone without understanding the terms of coverage and remediation, who's fault is that? If their terms weren't sufficient (can't deliver a replacement fast enough) then go somewhere else.
I'm not going to waste my time looking for a citation, but I'm pretty sure you could find SOME company that would give you a premium insurance plan that would replace your phone as fast as you want, but I imagine the cost of such a policy would be greater than just buying two devices up front.
The best I can do is distill your argument down to this: You are unhappy with the terms of service on your phone replacement plan. You project your own ignorance of the terms of your insurance contract onto others by making this unfounded statement: "most users have no idea when walk out of the store with a new phone, whether the store would give them a loaner phone(sic)." You possibly STILL don't understand that the cellular carrier who sold you the insurance policy, did so as a proxy, and that the company who insures your phone is most likely a 3rd party (citation: every insurance policy I have purchased for a mobile phone was through a 3rd party insurer, even though the transaction took place at the cellular carrier's sales floor). You hold the cellular carrier responsible for your dissatisfaction with an insurance contract to which the cellular carrier is not a party.
Have I summed that up correctly?
My advice to you is this: Be a better consumer. Understand the terms of a contract you enter into before signing or paying, and live by those terms. Understand that mitigating risk does happen at the societal level, but it does so FOR the society, not the individual. I you want to mitigate your individual risk, take action yourself, don't rely on others to mitigate your personal risk. And finally, my most fervent advice to you is this: Improve your situational awareness. When guys in a rental yacht pull up next to your inflatable dinghy and start chatting you up in an attempt to commandeer your bikini clad women... do not be fooled. Keep calm and row on.
Now we're getting down to it... why didn't you just start by saying "I wish I could pay extra for a premium replacement plan that allowed me to choose in advance, a phone handset of my liking, but leave it at the nearest convenient cellular retailer for the inevitable eventuality that I put my phone in the drink, so I don't have to wait 24 hours for a replacement handset."
Instead you hit us with the traditional TL;DR.
One concept that I think you are missing still is this: the market HAS REACHED THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION! We currently (and nearly always) sit at the balance point of what people are willing to pay for a service, and what a provider wants to charge for said service. Economics 101: Price curve meets demand curve and falls in love... you know the story right?
Also, your ass still got kidnapped. Just because you had been talking to them for a while doesn't mean they are pillars of the community.
Who is the "we" that is going to mitigate the cost? How is "legislating that the store to do more than they do now" in any way an act of mitigation? Have you considered the cost of enforcement? That's just more of my tax money that you are wasting!
You have not answered the most critical question that has been posed over and over again by myself and others: Who is going to bear the huge costs of forcing stores to carry loaner phones? How is this profitable for the owners of the cellular store? How do you offset the cost of stocking several "loaner" units when they become obsolete and can't be sold? The store is going to pass the cost on to the customers, which means that in part, I end up subsidizing your dumb ass for not being able to take care of your personal belongings.
The way you phrase things makes me think you are angling for some kind of consumer protection sympathy, but you don't realize that this is not protecting consumers... it's protecting consumers who made poor choices in the face of obvious risk. As has been stated above, if you want an instant replacement plan for your phone... buy two. Asking the entire market to help you bear the cost of insuring your device is a form of socialism.