Accessories like a Square credit card reader are absolutely universally compatible.
The 4 pole headphone is universally compatible across all devices, unless device makers design their accessory specifically to be proprietary.
Remote functionality on smartphone headphones is definitely possible and several headphones have 3 function control buttons that work with apple or android.
I disagree. I often have problems with bluetooth devices
this is true...in my usage bluetooth degrades quality and has other problems similar to what you mention
I mostly skipped over bluetooth's problems because I didn't want to get bogged down with people missing my main point and just retorting in defense of *their* chosen bluetooth solution, which is "just fine"
Apple is so far up it's ass on this whole "it's all wireless in the future and the future is now" bullshit...
Bluetooth is great, but battery life and size are often fatally problematic to the notion of "just get bluetooth headphones" is some kind of universal solution rendering headphones with cords (btw the headphone jack is also a *universally compatible data port*) obsolete and somehow justifying Apple's design strategy and marketing on these products.
Let me address this now, people will definitely comment, "But I have used bluetooth headphones for years and the battery life and sound quality are sufficient"...that's great, but it's not evidence that proves this is a good design decision.
Bluetooth headphones are caught between wanting to be as small as possible, have longer battery life, and not teathering them for convenience somehow (b/c then might as well use a cord!). It's what happens when you let marketing drive design, an obtuse impass where no solution is right. Wireless headphones with 8 hours of battery life is not enough for many, many users. For many various reasons. It really is noteworthy that the smaller they get the more they would benefit from cords, which are the whole thing they attempt to avoid.
We are far, far away from wireless headphones being a de facto replacement for wired headphones such that we can just discard the headphone port.
I will definitely have a look, thank you very much.
There is something here that I think is relevant:
Bell essentially codified the latter's reservations and wanted to prove Einstein right, but nature did not cooperate.....It's these weird experimental results that have brow beaten physicists accepting entanglement as a fundamentally non-local phenomenon, against the marked resistance of some of the best and brightest minds like Einstein and Bell.
Now, I don't expect a response necessarily because I'm just spitballing here (and you've been very kind thusfar attempting to explain your point to me)....but I seem to recall from my previous look into "spooky action at a distance" that the idea that Einstein and Bell had been "proven wrong" was generally accepted, but only if we make some assumptions about how the universe works that, while generally accepted as true, are dependent on a definition of some concepts that are abstract and not scientifically provable.
I know...read your links...and I will (thanks again)...but I just can't shake the idea that I've taken a deep dive into this before and found that there are still some fundamental assumptions that are a sort of philosphical scaffolding for proving Bell/Einstein "wrong" on action at a distance.
using non-local quantum entaglement to instantaneously transmit information indeed would be faster-than-light
humans have not achieved non-local entanglement, nor have they used it for computing, and unless you redefine "quantum" then it's not possible for these to be "quantum computers"
yes, you're right that we could only verify the signal transmission at light speed, but if it is instantaneous then it's instantaneous...if the phenomenon happens and we verify it then the ability is confirmed...time is more than just what any one observer sees and we can determine if something was instantaneous vs faster-than-light...why couldn't we?
I'm just a telecommunications scientist so this is definitely out of my expertise in some ways, but I think I know enough to understand that true non-locality has not been achieved and that for a "quantum" computer to truly be quantum, it would have to use actual instantaneous non-locality to process
What is unclear is how useful this process will actually be in practice. Quantum speed-ups are not at all guaranteed with this design. That's were the focus should be. Not some rehashed conspiracy theory that D-Wave is faking their hardware.
you're hitting it here...
the controversy is about what "fake" is...actual quantum non-locality would be faster than light information and that would turn Einstein's theories, as well as many other theories on their head
critics are right to say that D-wave is not actual quantum computing and it just hurts us all to let marketing rule in this arena
now, is D-wave "faking their hardware"? in essence, no, it's real software on a machine that exists in reality...but it's not "quantum" like they are claiming
everyone wants to race to being able to say "quantum" and predictably people are cheating on how they define it to claim to be the first...it's not a new tactic, but we should still be critical of it!
actual 'non-locality' would be faster-than-light travel and turn some core Einstein theories on their head...b?it would be transmitting information isntantaneously regardless of distance and that would be kind of a big deal
it's all simulated at some level...simulated or redefined in such a way to make it not actual non-locality
they could have chosen the 32 gb option and used a bigger battery, but it "has to be thin" so they went with the lpddr3.
this is indeed what happened...it's designing with marketing first instead of the user...
I'm fine with Apple having cheesey, trendy marketing, but they need to put the user first in their design decisions.
Marketing can figure out something...they pay them enough ffs...but they really need to change how they make design decisions.
One day, maybe far, far in the future, but some day Microsoft might figure out that if they avoid their garbage spyware/adware software they can ruin Apple due to their market penetration from government contracts....if Apple is still letting ad slogans guide design at that point, on that day Microsoft will kill Apple.
This is a good step, but there's a greater fallacy at work at Apple here: The triumph of marketing demands over technical needs of the user.
Apple is great...they are better than Microsoft at making both hardware and software (especially software). Apple's OS is basically Unix with a candy coated shell and it is the best for basically anything except gaming (I know broad statement...I'm sure there are other applications that are better on Windoze but I'm speaking broadly...chill).
Apple's mistake, and it's a big one, is letting advertising phrases like "Our thinnest Macbook Pro yet!" override user centered design.
Same goes for their port nonsense...removing the headphone jack was a huge mistake, it's a *data port* that is backwards compatible with 100 year old tech. They wanted to advertise their phones as "waterproof" so instead of making the port waterproof like other companies, they just remove it and let marketing handle it. Disgusting.
Apple can easily regain their footing by putting the users first in their design decisions and stop their design hubris.
his is like suing a software engineer's new company because he worked on GPS mapping software at his old and new company, it's just ridiculous.
I don't see this at all, and you're being a bit hyperbolic.
A company has a right to hire people to write software that belongs to said company...that's a thing that exists and it's not "slavery".
It seems like you're arguing that a comic character created by an artist for DC while working at DC isn't DC's IP and that character goes with the creator wherever they may work, which is just ridiculous.
I can't say the claims have merit, but you're saying it's *impossible* for them to have merit and that's just not so...
Palmer Luckey wasn't a "tech innovator"...he was a rich geek who frequented VR modding message boards, and just like everyone else took a smartphone screen and hooked it to community-made VR software
Occulus has always been more about hype than actual tech...that's fine as it goes...if I could start a hype driven company and get it purchased by Facebook for Billions I'd do it, but lets' not pretend or let marketing people write the history.
I'm not surprised at all that Occulus is being accused of doing this...doesn't mean it's true...but on the face of it, this fits with Occulus' modus operandi since it was just Palmer Luckey posting on message boards
it's simulated programatically, it's not actual quantum annealing or any kind of actual non-locality (which like I said would be one of the biggest physics acheivements in human history)
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
Now that we got that out of the way, let's see Snowden for what he is, an obtuse narcissist who was either blackmailed or duped into stealing a powerpoint presentation that gave names of programs we knew existed.
Today, Snowden is basically in prison in Russia.
I think he should come clean on what actually happened, admit the info was already available, and get pardoned. Same with Chelsea Manning and others who haven't gotten as much press coverage.
We need whistleblowers. Our government needs a safety valve for situations when the people who watch the watchers are not doing their job.
D-wave is not quantum computing. It's regular, non-quantum computing that uses software to simulate what we think using non-locality in computing would be.
Humans actually controlling quantum non-locality would be arguably the biggest feat since harnessing the atom...it amazes me how this blatant bs continues to be called "quantum"...
I just don't have the time or the inclination to fuck around with the current MBP products. I see a million roadblocks and stumbling points that I just don't want to deal with. I have other things to do.
imho you aren't an edge case...you should be the target user...sort of like how a pole vaulter aims *over* the bar...grandmas and sorority chicks who use their mac for email and facebook will be happy if you're happy, in that sense
Apple under Tim Cook seems to believe iOS devices are the "future" as the traditional computer dies out
Partially true.
Apple is the victim of their own design hubris...the port removals are the perfect example.
They think paper thin phones are "a few years away" and are pushing wireless everything, and it's horseshit.
Apple just needs to come back to reality and put usable ports on their devices...that's all...
Windows is still spyware/adware garbage, and even with Apple's port nonsense, Apple products are still miles better than Windows.
Mac's are Unix-like systems...basically they are Linux with a candy-coated shell. People do the most technical software development on Macs all the time and it works flawlessly.
Windows is...it's just garbage...Apple just needs to put the fucking ports back and all will be well.
Slashdot Mirror
Accessories like a Square credit card reader are absolutely universally compatible.
The 4 pole headphone is universally compatible across all devices, unless device makers design their accessory specifically to be proprietary.
Remote functionality on smartphone headphones is definitely possible and several headphones have 3 function control buttons that work with apple or android.
this is true...in my usage bluetooth degrades quality and has other problems similar to what you mention
I mostly skipped over bluetooth's problems because I didn't want to get bogged down with people missing my main point and just retorting in defense of *their* chosen bluetooth solution, which is "just fine"
see, the problem here is the inability to think beyond one use case
call it "sociopathic design"
it may meet *a particular user's needs* but that doesn't mean it's sufficient or balances out the negatives
leave the headphone port and guess what? people can use bluetooth just as without...
Apple is so far up it's ass on this whole "it's all wireless in the future and the future is now" bullshit...
Bluetooth is great, but battery life and size are often fatally problematic to the notion of "just get bluetooth headphones" is some kind of universal solution rendering headphones with cords (btw the headphone jack is also a *universally compatible data port*) obsolete and somehow justifying Apple's design strategy and marketing on these products.
Let me address this now, people will definitely comment, "But I have used bluetooth headphones for years and the battery life and sound quality are sufficient"...that's great, but it's not evidence that proves this is a good design decision.
Bluetooth headphones are caught between wanting to be as small as possible, have longer battery life, and not teathering them for convenience somehow (b/c then might as well use a cord!). It's what happens when you let marketing drive design, an obtuse impass where no solution is right. Wireless headphones with 8 hours of battery life is not enough for many, many users. For many various reasons. It really is noteworthy that the smaller they get the more they would benefit from cords, which are the whole thing they attempt to avoid.
We are far, far away from wireless headphones being a de facto replacement for wired headphones such that we can just discard the headphone port.
I will definitely have a look, thank you very much.
There is something here that I think is relevant:
Now, I don't expect a response necessarily because I'm just spitballing here (and you've been very kind thusfar attempting to explain your point to me)....but I seem to recall from my previous look into "spooky action at a distance" that the idea that Einstein and Bell had been "proven wrong" was generally accepted, but only if we make some assumptions about how the universe works that, while generally accepted as true, are dependent on a definition of some concepts that are abstract and not scientifically provable.
I know...read your links...and I will (thanks again)...but I just can't shake the idea that I've taken a deep dive into this before and found that there are still some fundamental assumptions that are a sort of philosphical scaffolding for proving Bell/Einstein "wrong" on action at a distance.
yes, this is the correct answer
Good info thanks....my criticism is more about the whole of the design...including the soldiered hard drive, the ports, and the rest
I agree with you in general on your specific point though.
look at the tachyonic anti-telephone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
using non-local quantum entaglement to instantaneously transmit information indeed would be faster-than-light
humans have not achieved non-local entanglement, nor have they used it for computing, and unless you redefine "quantum" then it's not possible for these to be "quantum computers"
yes, you're right that we could only verify the signal transmission at light speed, but if it is instantaneous then it's instantaneous...if the phenomenon happens and we verify it then the ability is confirmed...time is more than just what any one observer sees and we can determine if something was instantaneous vs faster-than-light...why couldn't we?
I'm just a telecommunications scientist so this is definitely out of my expertise in some ways, but I think I know enough to understand that true non-locality has not been achieved and that for a "quantum" computer to truly be quantum, it would have to use actual instantaneous non-locality to process
thanks for this discussion it's been helpful
yes this is certainly possible...might go down to what contract has precedence when there are conflicting contracts that overlap...
you're hitting it here...
the controversy is about what "fake" is...actual quantum non-locality would be faster than light information and that would turn Einstein's theories, as well as many other theories on their head
critics are right to say that D-wave is not actual quantum computing and it just hurts us all to let marketing rule in this arena
now, is D-wave "faking their hardware"? in essence, no, it's real software on a machine that exists in reality...but it's not "quantum" like they are claiming
everyone wants to race to being able to say "quantum" and predictably people are cheating on how they define it to claim to be the first...it's not a new tactic, but we should still be critical of it!
simulated...it's all simulated
actual 'non-locality' would be faster-than-light travel and turn some core Einstein theories on their head...b?it would be transmitting information isntantaneously regardless of distance and that would be kind of a big deal
it's all simulated at some level...simulated or redefined in such a way to make it not actual non-locality
the lawsuit is about IP...and it looks plausible at least
but yeah, I'd love to see a company sue over stealing hype...good lord...can you imagine the testimony about "value" from "social media"?
this is indeed what happened...it's designing with marketing first instead of the user...
I'm fine with Apple having cheesey, trendy marketing, but they need to put the user first in their design decisions.
Marketing can figure out something...they pay them enough ffs...but they really need to change how they make design decisions.
One day, maybe far, far in the future, but some day Microsoft might figure out that if they avoid their garbage spyware/adware software they can ruin Apple due to their market penetration from government contracts....if Apple is still letting ad slogans guide design at that point, on that day Microsoft will kill Apple.
This is a good step, but there's a greater fallacy at work at Apple here: The triumph of marketing demands over technical needs of the user.
Apple is great...they are better than Microsoft at making both hardware and software (especially software). Apple's OS is basically Unix with a candy coated shell and it is the best for basically anything except gaming (I know broad statement...I'm sure there are other applications that are better on Windoze but I'm speaking broadly...chill).
Apple's mistake, and it's a big one, is letting advertising phrases like "Our thinnest Macbook Pro yet!" override user centered design.
Same goes for their port nonsense...removing the headphone jack was a huge mistake, it's a *data port* that is backwards compatible with 100 year old tech. They wanted to advertise their phones as "waterproof" so instead of making the port waterproof like other companies, they just remove it and let marketing handle it. Disgusting.
Apple can easily regain their footing by putting the users first in their design decisions and stop their design hubris.
good point...
I mean, we'd have to basically see the code to really judge for ourselves, but it certainly sounds plausible.
I don't see this at all, and you're being a bit hyperbolic.
A company has a right to hire people to write software that belongs to said company...that's a thing that exists and it's not "slavery".
It seems like you're arguing that a comic character created by an artist for DC while working at DC isn't DC's IP and that character goes with the creator wherever they may work, which is just ridiculous.
I can't say the claims have merit, but you're saying it's *impossible* for them to have merit and that's just not so...
Palmer Luckey wasn't a "tech innovator"...he was a rich geek who frequented VR modding message boards, and just like everyone else took a smartphone screen and hooked it to community-made VR software
Occulus has always been more about hype than actual tech...that's fine as it goes...if I could start a hype driven company and get it purchased by Facebook for Billions I'd do it, but lets' not pretend or let marketing people write the history.
I'm not surprised at all that Occulus is being accused of doing this...doesn't mean it's true...but on the face of it, this fits with Occulus' modus operandi since it was just Palmer Luckey posting on message boards
it's simulated programatically, it's not actual quantum annealing or any kind of actual non-locality (which like I said would be one of the biggest physics acheivements in human history)
First, context of what Snowden actually did....
We knew about what Snowden released since 2006, read it and weep: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
From that article:
Now that we got that out of the way, let's see Snowden for what he is, an obtuse narcissist who was either blackmailed or duped into stealing a powerpoint presentation that gave names of programs we knew existed.
Today, Snowden is basically in prison in Russia.
I think he should come clean on what actually happened, admit the info was already available, and get pardoned. Same with Chelsea Manning and others who haven't gotten as much press coverage.
We need whistleblowers. Our government needs a safety valve for situations when the people who watch the watchers are not doing their job.
D-wave is not quantum computing. It's regular, non-quantum computing that uses software to simulate what we think using non-locality in computing would be.
Humans actually controlling quantum non-locality would be arguably the biggest feat since harnessing the atom...it amazes me how this blatant bs continues to be called "quantum"...
imho you aren't an edge case...you should be the target user...sort of like how a pole vaulter aims *over* the bar...grandmas and sorority chicks who use their mac for email and facebook will be happy if you're happy, in that sense
but...switching to windoze?
good point thanks for the correction
Partially true.
Apple is the victim of their own design hubris...the port removals are the perfect example.
They think paper thin phones are "a few years away" and are pushing wireless everything, and it's horseshit.
Apple just needs to come back to reality and put usable ports on their devices...that's all...
Windows is still spyware/adware garbage, and even with Apple's port nonsense, Apple products are still miles better than Windows.
Mac's are Unix-like systems...basically they are Linux with a candy-coated shell. People do the most technical software development on Macs all the time and it works flawlessly.
Windows is...it's just garbage...Apple just needs to put the fucking ports back and all will be well.
Windows has always...*always* benefitted from these kinds of stats due to the fact that most desktops in the US government run Windows.
It's our taxpayer dollars at work!
Apple's products are better than ever...*except* for the ridiculous port nonsense.
Windows is still garbage spy/ad-ware...it's worse than ever.
Neither are right, but Apple's products are still way better for the end user of any level.
I agree, always good to remember the two are different.