That image of yours makes it appear that the camera comes out in the middle of the light grey decorative band. But it doesn't That's how much perspective there is. The only reason the camera is visible at all is that the camera is in line with the back of the iPhone, not along the centre line.
you'd have to be pretty naive to think it wasn't done on purpose.
Of course it's done on purpose. All companies photo their products from the best angles and the best lighting. Even people like to be photographed "from their best side". But that's a very different thing from editing a photograph to remove a feature.
There is absolutely no evidence of editing whatsoever. It's trivial to take a genuine side on photograph that does not show the camera protrusion, so there's no reason to edit. A couple of other posters have done the trigonometry to prove it.
"Mine" being my fiance's (he has the iPhone, I have a ZTE Score.)
Would this be the same fiance you claimed on Saturday had an iPhone 4S and wouldn't ever buy another iPhone?
"The 4S will be his last Apple phone. He was not pleased to find the newest U2 album suddenly breaking up his electronica mix, and having eaten about 3% of his monthly data plan, all without his permission." http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
And don't bother trying to claim he changed his mind. As of yesterday no consumers had get their iPhones, let alone one's that didn't order till Saturday.
Does your imaginary fiance know that you are telling lies about him?
Re:no wonder apple dropped 16GB machines
on
iOS 8 Review
·
· Score: 1
16 GB is there BECAUSE it's a bad choice. 32 GB is NOT there BECAUSE it's a good choice.
That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there. One where Apple consciously choose to have a worse product line rather than a better one.
The reality is that when sizing products, 3 varieties is good. Good/better/best. Small/medium/large. Regular/Large/Super-size.
16GB is the smallest reasonable size. Good for people who use the device for phone, messaging and social networks.
128GB is the reasonable top end, that's big enough without being prohibitively expensive.
Which means that they have to chose from 32GB or 64GB for their medium model. If they'd have chosen 32GB you'd have come up with some conspiracy theory for why 64GB was the best choice and was thus withheld.
These are probably CG, not photos. This was deliberate.
Yes, yes and yes. Which doesn't mean the lens has been artificially removed, either by post processing or by rendering a false model. It's simply a perspective image.
(Nothing to do with parallax, which is about displacement of objects in moving images).
Here's a more realistic side shot which is already fairly up close and wide angle:
That photo is taken from below the phone. You don't only see the blurred camera, you see the blurred back of the case. So it does nothing to show that a real edge on perspective photo can't hide the camera bulge. The fact is that it MUST be able to, because it the camera bulge is showing you can just move closer to the phone.
There is no photo editing needed. This story is a conspiracy theory, nothing more.
Which is not the slightest bit relevant to Uber. In the hypothetical event that Apple Pay was both insecure, and Uber were liabile for more than the expected amount of fraud, they could simply stop accepting Apple Pay, and simply have people pay through their credit cards, as before.
The general "credit cards on the internet" problem is no different for Uber than for any other ecommerce trader.
Your kneejerk comment appears to be motivated by dislike of certain companies, not any rational assessment of real risks.
It's all profit for them. Uber get a cut of every fare, without having to invest in cars or drivers. The drivers themselves are the ones taking the risk of not making any money.
You can't order a service from Uber without either a registered credit card or Apple Pay. So provided you are willing to pay for the prank, go right ahead.
But this is an add on, rather than the entirety of the service. If you're a taxi driver waiting for a fare, you might be willing to do an errand rather than sit there doing nothing. They don't need to fill a driver's time with errands as Urban Fetch would have had to.
Additionally if it was at the time of Web 1.0, then most people didn't have smartphones, which makes a big difference.
The only poster I've seen who's claimed that he experienced this happening is the biggest Apple hating troll on the site. So I'm not convinced anyone was affected. At the very least they'd have to select the non-default "Autodownload purchases" and "Autodownload over cellular" options. The latter of which you are unlikely to do if you have a limited data plan.
But most of the people complaining don't even have that risk as they are not iPhone owners. They hate Apple. The are complaining about something that doesn't affect them in any way. And that is indeed a first world problem of the most extreme kind.
Sue to virtual memory and caches, the free space will move up and down by far more than the size of an album without you choosing to do a thing. Your claimed problem is completely imaginary.
As a previous poster said, if your free space is anywhere below 1GB you're causing your own problems. And indeed the OS will be reminding you you are short on space and need to make more room.
It you don't have a data plan or only a small one, then you will not have selected "Autodownload via cellular", and therefore there won't be a problem.
On the contrary. The two types that are complaining about this are:
1) Libertarian types who don't want anything to happen that they didn't chose. Both Tea party types and the FOSS brigade. 2) Apple haters.
Neither group owns Apple devices or have iTunes accounts anyway. So they don't matter.
Progressive liberals are quite happy to have a free U2 album - especially as it's a good one. And the music industry are quite happy that one of their own got a $100 million payout from Apple. They are hoping it sets a precedent.
Why are you arguing with me? Why didn't you point out that you wildly agree with my summary at the end of my post:
"But atheists share no common beliefs. The agreement on terms is simple - atheists simply don't believe in god. No more and no less. Any other common attributes or beliefs you attribute to them is false stereotyping on your side."
It's exactly what went on to argue. Unless you are saying that you don't think that atheism is a non-belief in any gods. In which case you wouldn't be mischaracterized - you'd be describing yourself as an atheist incorrectly, for that's exactly what it means.
Atheism is an affirmative belief that god (or any other deity, supernatural force, etc.) doesn't exist.
This is a false belief of theists. An atheist will tell you that t's exactly what the etemology of the word is. Atheism is "without a belief in God". No more and no less.
Perhaps theists lack the ability to understand that you don't have to have a blind belief in something.
Do you find that atheists often mischaracterise your beliefs? Or they group all people who have a religion, or at least all Christians, in one single category? Well that's what you're attempting to do with atheists.
Except it's worse - if you're a Christian say, at least you share a belief in the Christ with other Christians. But atheists share no common beliefs. The agreement on terms is simple - atheists simply don't believe in god. No more and no less. Any other common attributes or beliefs you attribute to them is false stereotyping on your side.
With hands free setups it's no different than chatting with a passenger in the car.
The evidence is that is IS more dangerous. The reason being that a passenger is aware of the situation you are in, and will tend to make allowances for the driving situation you are in. Someone on the other end of a phone has no idea.
Air bags with and without seatbelts have been widely crash tested. They save lives. Period. Your one off anecdote, and interpretation thereof vs imagined outcome without the airbag, is not data.
This is not to say that no one has even been injured of killed with an airbag when they wouldn't have without. But they fade into insignificance vs the opposite statistic.
Myths that it's more dangerous to war a seatbelt than not to are just as ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
That image of yours makes it appear that the camera comes out in the middle of the light grey decorative band. But it doesn't That's how much perspective there is. The only reason the camera is visible at all is that the camera is in line with the back of the iPhone, not along the centre line.
you'd have to be pretty naive to think it wasn't done on purpose.
Of course it's done on purpose. All companies photo their products from the best angles and the best lighting. Even people like to be photographed "from their best side". But that's a very different thing from editing a photograph to remove a feature.
There is absolutely no evidence of editing whatsoever. It's trivial to take a genuine side on photograph that does not show the camera protrusion, so there's no reason to edit. A couple of other posters have done the trigonometry to prove it.
"Mine" being my fiance's (he has the iPhone, I have a ZTE Score.)
Would this be the same fiance you claimed on Saturday had an iPhone 4S and wouldn't ever buy another iPhone?
"The 4S will be his last Apple phone. He was not pleased to find the newest U2 album suddenly breaking up his electronica mix, and having eaten about 3% of his monthly data plan, all without his permission."
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
And don't bother trying to claim he changed his mind. As of yesterday no consumers had get their iPhones, let alone one's that didn't order till Saturday.
Does your imaginary fiance know that you are telling lies about him?
16 GB is there BECAUSE it's a bad choice.
32 GB is NOT there BECAUSE it's a good choice.
That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there. One where Apple consciously choose to have a worse product line rather than a better one.
The reality is that when sizing products, 3 varieties is good. Good/better/best. Small/medium/large. Regular/Large/Super-size.
16GB is the smallest reasonable size. Good for people who use the device for phone, messaging and social networks.
128GB is the reasonable top end, that's big enough without being prohibitively expensive.
Which means that they have to chose from 32GB or 64GB for their medium model. If they'd have chosen 32GB you'd have come up with some conspiracy theory for why 64GB was the best choice and was thus withheld.
These are probably CG, not photos. This was deliberate.
Yes, yes and yes. Which doesn't mean the lens has been artificially removed, either by post processing or by rendering a false model. It's simply a perspective image.
(Nothing to do with parallax, which is about displacement of objects in moving images).
Here's a more realistic side shot which is already fairly up close and wide angle:
That photo is taken from below the phone. You don't only see the blurred camera, you see the blurred back of the case. So it does nothing to show that a real edge on perspective photo can't hide the camera bulge. The fact is that it MUST be able to, because it the camera bulge is showing you can just move closer to the phone.
There is no photo editing needed. This story is a conspiracy theory, nothing more.
I'm holding mine exactly like that right now.
Don't lie. You don't own one. You've made it abundantly clear in previous posts that you hate Apple and it's products.
Which is not the slightest bit relevant to Uber. In the hypothetical event that Apple Pay was both insecure, and Uber were liabile for more than the expected amount of fraud, they could simply stop accepting Apple Pay, and simply have people pay through their credit cards, as before.
The general "credit cards on the internet" problem is no different for Uber than for any other ecommerce trader.
Your kneejerk comment appears to be motivated by dislike of certain companies, not any rational assessment of real risks.
Not a problem for Uber. The driver is insured and Uber have their own public liability insurance in the event that any liability falls on them.
It's all profit for them. Uber get a cut of every fare, without having to invest in cars or drivers. The drivers themselves are the ones taking the risk of not making any money.
Uber drivers get rated by their customers. Less than about 4.7 out of 5 and you're not going to get fares.
Ummm, they're looking down and will see the hole.
You overestimate them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You can't order a service from Uber without either a registered credit card or Apple Pay. So provided you are willing to pay for the prank, go right ahead.
But this is an add on, rather than the entirety of the service. If you're a taxi driver waiting for a fare, you might be willing to do an errand rather than sit there doing nothing. They don't need to fill a driver's time with errands as Urban Fetch would have had to.
Additionally if it was at the time of Web 1.0, then most people didn't have smartphones, which makes a big difference.
The only poster I've seen who's claimed that he experienced this happening is the biggest Apple hating troll on the site. So I'm not convinced anyone was affected. At the very least they'd have to select the non-default "Autodownload purchases" and "Autodownload over cellular" options. The latter of which you are unlikely to do if you have a limited data plan.
But most of the people complaining don't even have that risk as they are not iPhone owners. They hate Apple. The are complaining about something that doesn't affect them in any way. And that is indeed a first world problem of the most extreme kind.
Sue to virtual memory and caches, the free space will move up and down by far more than the size of an album without you choosing to do a thing. Your claimed problem is completely imaginary.
As a previous poster said, if your free space is anywhere below 1GB you're causing your own problems. And indeed the OS will be reminding you you are short on space and need to make more room.
It you don't have a data plan or only a small one, then you will not have selected "Autodownload via cellular", and therefore there won't be a problem.
On the contrary. The two types that are complaining about this are:
1) Libertarian types who don't want anything to happen that they didn't chose. Both Tea party types and the FOSS brigade.
2) Apple haters.
Neither group owns Apple devices or have iTunes accounts anyway. So they don't matter.
Progressive liberals are quite happy to have a free U2 album - especially as it's a good one. And the music industry are quite happy that one of their own got a $100 million payout from Apple. They are hoping it sets a precedent.
Why are you arguing with me? Why didn't you point out that you wildly agree with my summary at the end of my post: "But atheists share no common beliefs. The agreement on terms is simple - atheists simply don't believe in god. No more and no less. Any other common attributes or beliefs you attribute to them is false stereotyping on your side." It's exactly what went on to argue. Unless you are saying that you don't think that atheism is a non-belief in any gods. In which case you wouldn't be mischaracterized - you'd be describing yourself as an atheist incorrectly, for that's exactly what it means.
Atheism is an affirmative belief that god (or any other deity, supernatural force, etc.) doesn't exist.
This is a false belief of theists. An atheist will tell you that t's exactly what the etemology of the word is. Atheism is "without a belief in God". No more and no less. Perhaps theists lack the ability to understand that you don't have to have a blind belief in something.
Do you find that atheists often mischaracterise your beliefs? Or they group all people who have a religion, or at least all Christians, in one single category? Well that's what you're attempting to do with atheists. Except it's worse - if you're a Christian say, at least you share a belief in the Christ with other Christians. But atheists share no common beliefs. The agreement on terms is simple - atheists simply don't believe in god. No more and no less. Any other common attributes or beliefs you attribute to them is false stereotyping on your side.
You must be quite young if you've never used an analogue clock.
With hands free setups it's no different than chatting with a passenger in the car.
The evidence is that is IS more dangerous. The reason being that a passenger is aware of the situation you are in, and will tend to make allowances for the driving situation you are in. Someone on the other end of a phone has no idea.
That myth was busted by Mythbusters.
The myth that you can lose your thumbs to an airbag if holding the steering wheel in the 10 to 2 position was busted by Mythbusters.
Air bags with and without seatbelts have been widely crash tested. They save lives. Period. Your one off anecdote, and interpretation thereof vs imagined outcome without the airbag, is not data. This is not to say that no one has even been injured of killed with an airbag when they wouldn't have without. But they fade into insignificance vs the opposite statistic. Myths that it's more dangerous to war a seatbelt than not to are just as ridiculous.