Yes it is exactly how it works. When you send your head of state to sign an agreement, other countries aren't supposed to read all your laws to make sure he has the right to do it. Just like some dictators decided on their own to sign the agreement, if rule of law isn't applied in your country and that makes you sign it, then too bad for you, but you are politically bound by it. But anyways as multiple people said in this discussion, it is not a treaty but an executive agreement within US law and senate approval isn't required. So the rule of law has been respected.
The point is that sea level rise and other adverse effects of global warming are going to cost more to humanity than not doing anything about it and continue the exponential growth of CO2. There is a sweet spot somewhere between unlimited emissions and zero emission. We should try to achieve it. The problem is that the current system of the polluter externalizing the damages of his pollution to the rest of the world is intrinsically broken.
Thanks, went with Let's encrypt. Turns out it's even better as the certificate auto-renew. So even if the duration is only 90 days (1 year with Startcom) it doesn't matter.
Yes they would. And the US did ratify it. Only "it" isn't considered a treaty within US laws. Worldwide it's still a treaty/agreement/whatever you call it. And the US is part of it, like it or not.
Are you saying a law would be any different? It's illegal for the planet to warm by more than 2 Celsius! That sounds a lot more effective than an executive order!
How do you figure? Executive agreements do not legally bind the US to anything. Basically they are figuratively handshake deals with no consequences for reneging.
That's exactly what the agreement is about in all countries. The agreement is politically binding, not legally binding anywhere. What did you expect? Who would you sue if the 2 Celsius target is not respected? Because that's what is in the agreement. Nothing more. The agreement has nothing to do with the law, therefore saying it is not legally binding in the US is moot.
It's the same fallacy all over again. Just because something is bad (in this case global warming) and even assuming there is nothing we can do to avoid it doesn't mean we should make it even worse by not making any effort to limit the damage. Global warming is not binary. There can be little warming, a big one, or anything in between.
Yes we must adapt, but we should also reduce our emissions. If we can't limit the raise to 2 C then let's try to keep it under 2.5 C or 3 C.
Being fallacious is not being realist. It's just being stupid.
Your internal affairs don't matter. Other countries think you are part of the agreement. That makes you part of the agreement, like it or not. Let say there was a clause (there isn't) that if the USA didn't reduce CO2 emissions by 50% in 2050 other countries can apply a 50% tax on everything imported from the USA. That clause could be invoked even if you say your president didn't have the authority to ratify the treaty, because international judges will say that the USA is part of the treaty.
It doesn't matter. The other countries couldn't care less on the internal mechanism for entry into force within the USA. What matters to the rest of the world is that the US ratified it. Now go ahead and sue your president for ratifying the agreement if he wasn't allowed to by your senate. The US is still a part of the agreement.
Is that there is no hard target. What happens if a country emits twice as much CO2 as they pledged? Nothing. Therefore it is worse than Kyoto, even if the US didn't ratify it.
Does the UK remain in the EEA? EFTA? Make more of the Commonwealth? Become an isolationist island state? Become another canton of Switzerland? Or the 51st state of the USA? Or a socialist republic?
The UK will be free to try to negotiate any deal it wishes once it is out of the EU. But when they voted for Brexit, that meant out of the EU no mater what.
They could have waited just one more year with Dock (that they should never have used to begin with) and switch directly to USB-C. Anyways, if they are going to switch the iPhone to USB-C, the sooner the less painful. Switching to USB-C after 5 iPhone iterations doesn't make any more sense than switching after just 1 on lightning. The other option is to stick to lightning until USB-D or whatever comes out in 20 years. I prefer they switch now. As a reasonable consumer, when you buy a phone with a proprietary port, you should expect it to be outdated next year and all you chargers and accessories won't be usable on your next phone (which could even be from another manufacturer with no rights on that port). You should never take it for granted that the port will survive many generations. Or even better, just get a phone with a standard port, there are many choices.
Exactly, so it's a good thing. We all benefit from having these free apps. It's not only Google and Microsoft. The open source community also rely on this. You don't have to buy gzip because there is a good one and it's free.
How is that different from your PC? When is it the last time you bought a Web browser, a ZIP utility, a SSH client, a text editor, a messaging client or a media player? Never, right? Why do people expect it to be any different on phones?
Phone app stores were like gold rushes. There was some money to make at the very beginning but it wasn't meant to last.
Tell me then, how many products do you see still using USB-mini? How about USB 1.0? CD-ROM (or DVD-RAM)? Where'd the PATA ports go? Why is that I can't find a power supply with ISA card support?
USB 1.0 devices still work just fine in any USB-A port. Mini-USB devices are still common, but only on the B (device) end, the host being USB-A. I have a few on my desk. CD-ROM and DVD-RAM can still be read in DVD and BD drives, although they are being phased out on laptops because of size constrains. PATA was gradually phased out too, motherboards included both PATA and SATA during the transition. That's the way you do a smooth transition. Oh and current ATX power supply can still power those ISA cards because they still have the 5VDC supply.
When everything is USC-C then this whole argument about having the right dongle inverts.
I agree. But I bet when that will happen 90% of those buying a Macbook Pro today will have bought a new laptop.
Standardizing on one port for the next 5 to ten years is going to be a joy.
Agreed. That's why Apple is wrong with proprietary ports such as Lightning and Dock. They should have used USB-C and micro-USB instead, like everyone else.
And that's because that transition year (or most likely 2-5 years these days) IS painful. When Dell and all other switches it's because the timing is good, not because Apple was somewhat right. If I buy a PC next year I can already tell you it will have at least one USB-A ports. And even if in 5 years every single gadget, device, TV switched to USB-C (which I doubt), I will still say that Apple was wrong in 2016 not to include any other port because USB-A is still useful today.
Also Apple isn't always the first to adopt new technology. They were pretty much last with LTE on phone, touch screen PCs, DDR memory, waterproof phone, NFC, and many other stuff. You are right that they are often first to adopt new ports, and that include the failures such as Firewire, Thunderbolt, Apple Display Connector, Mini-DVI, Lightning connector, 30-pin Dock connector, etc. (although the last two are failures mostly because because they were designed as such by being proprietary and not because they weren't actually used).
The change from floppy to everything else would have happened with or without the iMac. The technology was there and was being adopted fast. CDs, USB thumb drives, network... Not having a floppy drive on the first iMac was dumb. Floppy was still useful back then. My college bought a whole lab full of iMacs. They also bought a USB-floppy drive for every single iMac. It completely defeated the purpose of having a clean computer and also added to the cost (probably by a factor of 3-5x over an internal floppy drive).
Apple does make some dumb move. The iMac was one. So was their Firewire attempt and their Thunderbolt attempt (how many different Thunderbolt connectors again?). Thunderbolt over USB-C does have some merits and will probably end-up being the future (at least the USB part is useful), but USB-A is still useful. And good luck connecting that shiny new MacBook Pro to your corporate conf room projector. That's right, you'll need a dongle for probably the next 5 years because no, they are not going to replace all those TVs and projectors before that.
Oh and Lightning was the dumbest connector of them all. They could have waited just one more year and used USB-C instead. Now you have an iPhone which you can't connect to your Macbook.
As a whole the parliament should respect the result of the referendum and approve Brexit. The problem is that individually, every MP has a position on Brexit and some of them might have promised to their people that they would vote against Brexit. And this is part of democracy too. If a majority of the MPs are in this situation, the parliament as a whole could reject Brexit even tough it's against the will of the people. The conservative government want to avoid this deadlock and hoped to avoid a vote in the parliament for this reason. If the UK didn't have an archaic first past the post voting system, they might not have been in this situation. To begin with, the conservatives should not have done this non-binding referendum if they didn't have a majority of pro-Brexit MPs in the parliament to approve the result.
A 10% bezel is more than enough to have a case and use the phone with fingers. They only need to remove the top and bottom bezels which serve no purpose other than having the front camera and light sensor.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is exactly how it works. When you send your head of state to sign an agreement, other countries aren't supposed to read all your laws to make sure he has the right to do it. Just like some dictators decided on their own to sign the agreement, if rule of law isn't applied in your country and that makes you sign it, then too bad for you, but you are politically bound by it.
But anyways as multiple people said in this discussion, it is not a treaty but an executive agreement within US law and senate approval isn't required. So the rule of law has been respected.
The point is that sea level rise and other adverse effects of global warming are going to cost more to humanity than not doing anything about it and continue the exponential growth of CO2.
There is a sweet spot somewhere between unlimited emissions and zero emission. We should try to achieve it. The problem is that the current system of the polluter externalizing the damages of his pollution to the rest of the world is intrinsically broken.
Thanks, went with Let's encrypt. Turns out it's even better as the certificate auto-renew. So even if the duration is only 90 days (1 year with Startcom) it doesn't matter.
Yes they would. And the US did ratify it. Only "it" isn't considered a treaty within US laws. Worldwide it's still a treaty/agreement/whatever you call it. And the US is part of it, like it or not.
And Monster cable is the only HDMI cable maker making money, all others barely break even.
That Apple makes so much money is good for them and their investors, but not for the consumers using their phones.
Which part of the US constitution was smashed so that it no longer applies to France?
so what's the alternative now to get a free SSL certificate valid in browsers?
Are you saying a law would be any different? It's illegal for the planet to warm by more than 2 Celsius! That sounds a lot more effective than an executive order!
You might have had a point, except it's not even a treaty under the laws of your country.
How do you figure? Executive agreements do not legally bind the US to anything. Basically they are figuratively handshake deals with no consequences for reneging.
That's exactly what the agreement is about in all countries. The agreement is politically binding, not legally binding anywhere. What did you expect? Who would you sue if the 2 Celsius target is not respected? Because that's what is in the agreement. Nothing more. The agreement has nothing to do with the law, therefore saying it is not legally binding in the US is moot.
It's the same fallacy all over again.
Just because something is bad (in this case global warming) and even assuming there is nothing we can do to avoid it doesn't mean we should make it even worse by not making any effort to limit the damage. Global warming is not binary. There can be little warming, a big one, or anything in between.
Yes we must adapt, but we should also reduce our emissions. If we can't limit the raise to 2 C then let's try to keep it under 2.5 C or 3 C.
Being fallacious is not being realist. It's just being stupid.
Your internal affairs don't matter. Other countries think you are part of the agreement. That makes you part of the agreement, like it or not.
Let say there was a clause (there isn't) that if the USA didn't reduce CO2 emissions by 50% in 2050 other countries can apply a 50% tax on everything imported from the USA. That clause could be invoked even if you say your president didn't have the authority to ratify the treaty, because international judges will say that the USA is part of the treaty.
It doesn't matter. The other countries couldn't care less on the internal mechanism for entry into force within the USA. What matters to the rest of the world is that the US ratified it. Now go ahead and sue your president for ratifying the agreement if he wasn't allowed to by your senate. The US is still a part of the agreement.
Is that there is no hard target. What happens if a country emits twice as much CO2 as they pledged? Nothing.
Therefore it is worse than Kyoto, even if the US didn't ratify it.
Does the UK remain in the EEA? EFTA? Make more of the Commonwealth? Become an isolationist island state? Become another canton of Switzerland? Or the 51st state of the USA? Or a socialist republic?
The UK will be free to try to negotiate any deal it wishes once it is out of the EU. But when they voted for Brexit, that meant out of the EU no mater what.
The ports are not only about charging. It's a very simple way to do file transfers and connect speakers.
They could have waited just one more year with Dock (that they should never have used to begin with) and switch directly to USB-C.
Anyways, if they are going to switch the iPhone to USB-C, the sooner the less painful. Switching to USB-C after 5 iPhone iterations doesn't make any more sense than switching after just 1 on lightning. The other option is to stick to lightning until USB-D or whatever comes out in 20 years. I prefer they switch now.
As a reasonable consumer, when you buy a phone with a proprietary port, you should expect it to be outdated next year and all you chargers and accessories won't be usable on your next phone (which could even be from another manufacturer with no rights on that port). You should never take it for granted that the port will survive many generations. Or even better, just get a phone with a standard port, there are many choices.
and consumers benefited.
Exactly, so it's a good thing. We all benefit from having these free apps. It's not only Google and Microsoft. The open source community also rely on this. You don't have to buy gzip because there is a good one and it's free.
How is that different from your PC? When is it the last time you bought a Web browser, a ZIP utility, a SSH client, a text editor, a messaging client or a media player? Never, right? Why do people expect it to be any different on phones?
Phone app stores were like gold rushes. There was some money to make at the very beginning but it wasn't meant to last.
Tell me then, how many products do you see still using USB-mini? How about USB 1.0? CD-ROM (or DVD-RAM)? Where'd the PATA ports go? Why is that I can't find a power supply with ISA card support?
USB 1.0 devices still work just fine in any USB-A port. Mini-USB devices are still common, but only on the B (device) end, the host being USB-A. I have a few on my desk. CD-ROM and DVD-RAM can still be read in DVD and BD drives, although they are being phased out on laptops because of size constrains. PATA was gradually phased out too, motherboards included both PATA and SATA during the transition. That's the way you do a smooth transition. Oh and current ATX power supply can still power those ISA cards because they still have the 5VDC supply.
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
When everything is USC-C then this whole argument about having the right dongle inverts.
I agree. But I bet when that will happen 90% of those buying a Macbook Pro today will have bought a new laptop.
Standardizing on one port for the next 5 to ten years is going to be a joy.
Agreed. That's why Apple is wrong with proprietary ports such as Lightning and Dock. They should have used USB-C and micro-USB instead, like everyone else.
And that's because that transition year (or most likely 2-5 years these days) IS painful. When Dell and all other switches it's because the timing is good, not because Apple was somewhat right. If I buy a PC next year I can already tell you it will have at least one USB-A ports. And even if in 5 years every single gadget, device, TV switched to USB-C (which I doubt), I will still say that Apple was wrong in 2016 not to include any other port because USB-A is still useful today.
Also Apple isn't always the first to adopt new technology. They were pretty much last with LTE on phone, touch screen PCs, DDR memory, waterproof phone, NFC, and many other stuff.
You are right that they are often first to adopt new ports, and that include the failures such as Firewire, Thunderbolt, Apple Display Connector, Mini-DVI, Lightning connector, 30-pin Dock connector, etc. (although the last two are failures mostly because because they were designed as such by being proprietary and not because they weren't actually used).
The change from floppy to everything else would have happened with or without the iMac. The technology was there and was being adopted fast. CDs, USB thumb drives, network... Not having a floppy drive on the first iMac was dumb. Floppy was still useful back then. My college bought a whole lab full of iMacs. They also bought a USB-floppy drive for every single iMac. It completely defeated the purpose of having a clean computer and also added to the cost (probably by a factor of 3-5x over an internal floppy drive).
Apple does make some dumb move. The iMac was one. So was their Firewire attempt and their Thunderbolt attempt (how many different Thunderbolt connectors again?). Thunderbolt over USB-C does have some merits and will probably end-up being the future (at least the USB part is useful), but USB-A is still useful. And good luck connecting that shiny new MacBook Pro to your corporate conf room projector. That's right, you'll need a dongle for probably the next 5 years because no, they are not going to replace all those TVs and projectors before that.
Oh and Lightning was the dumbest connector of them all. They could have waited just one more year and used USB-C instead. Now you have an iPhone which you can't connect to your Macbook.
As a whole the parliament should respect the result of the referendum and approve Brexit.
The problem is that individually, every MP has a position on Brexit and some of them might have promised to their people that they would vote against Brexit. And this is part of democracy too.
If a majority of the MPs are in this situation, the parliament as a whole could reject Brexit even tough it's against the will of the people. The conservative government want to avoid this deadlock and hoped to avoid a vote in the parliament for this reason. If the UK didn't have an archaic first past the post voting system, they might not have been in this situation. To begin with, the conservatives should not have done this non-binding referendum if they didn't have a majority of pro-Brexit MPs in the parliament to approve the result.
A 10% bezel is more than enough to have a case and use the phone with fingers. They only need to remove the top and bottom bezels which serve no purpose other than having the front camera and light sensor.