So the authentication chip provides no value whatsoever to the customer, only negative value for cost-conscious customers who cannot purchase third party 'straight pieces of wire' that indeed should perform the function of a cable perfectly.
Goodness, you're on a roll today with your "facts".
The chip is not used for normal USB communication (because it's simply not necessary), but is part of the Lightning specification for other uses if the device is connected to something other than a USB port.
No, they didm't insist people needed "only Apple's branded cable" - they said that to ensure safety, you should only buy certified chargers and cables, and to emphasise this they initiated a trade in program where they would give you an Apple charger and cable if you sent them a cheap knockoff one.
Don';t let the facts get in the way of a good bash though, eh?
Oh, that's right, you're just "the rest of us" - you're not at all unbiased when it comes to discussions about Apple. My mistake!
Carry on with your gross inaccuracies presented as fact!
Why is it that people name their product the very opposite of what it is? Is it supposed to serve as some sort of rebuttal? Safe for who? The guy going 60mph? Anyone around him when he loses power steering and brakes?
It's clearly designed to bring police chases to a much more rapid end, so instead of chasing a guy at breakneck speed for miles and miles, with him maybe ending up wrapped around a tree, or crashing head on into a granny coming the other way, or a failed containment attempt resulting in him spinning out and crashing horrifically, instead the police just EMP the car and end the chase quickly.
No one said it had to be safe for the driver of the car. I assume it's called "safe stop" because the alternative is a risky high speed chase.
Seams like it's just batteries and few sensors mounted to the wheel and not the frame. Can't see it really changing anything since a conventional electric bicycle can be bought with more batteries for less money. Haven't looked at buying one. but I'm sure they have ones you can peddle on too. Regenerative braking is just looking online for circuits or hire an expert. Also, the fancy sensors could be added if desired along with a custom app. Give me $500,000 and a month; and I'll have 80-100% of their features (minus being on a wheel) on some prototype bikes. Give me some more money and another month or two; and I'll have the assemble line in China shipping them. Can't see it coming in over $150-500 retail depending on quality and features of the bike like suspension, steel or aluminum etc.
ahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you were serious? Let me laugh even harder.
For someone so determined to claim I was one component away from an "internet coward trifecta" you sure are showing your colours here.
You're directly questioning my intelligence rather than addressing or conceding the point. Calling me an idiot would be an insult, questioning my intelligence rather than addressing the argument is an ad hominem attack.
I assume you're waiting for me to snap at the bait and insult you so I can "complete the trifecta"?
You could just go back to the argument at hand. You seem to think the restaurant owner is in the wrong in asking a patron to remove a wearable camera/media device because he would clearly be in the wrong if he asked a woman to strip naked because she might have a hidden camera on her.
You then took this to it's extreme and suggested that my argument was invalid because the owner could ask a a female to strip naked because her clothes might contain a camera.
That's reductio ad absurdum, not strawman. Try not using big words anymore. They are too much for you.
I was wondering if you would counter with that. You just admitted to using logical fallacies in your own argument. It is also a straw man argument; you're claiming that because the owner could ask a female patron to strip naked that my argument that he is within his rights and justified to make requests of other patrons is fallacious. It's not mutually exclusive.
Funnily enough, it was you who then went for the ad hom, after suggesting that I should be the one to complete my "internet coward trifecta". Somewhat hypocritical, you think?
I gave no strawman. An analogy you don't like isn't a strawman. A strawman is making up an argument, then tearing it apart. Point out the strawman. There isn't one there. Just false rhetorical claims and whining by you.
My argument was that the owner was justified in asking the guy to remove his Glass because it contains a camera that could potentially be recording.
You then took this to it's extreme and suggested that my argument was invalid because the owner could ask a a female to strip naked because her clothes might contain a camera.
One on front, casual clothes typically do not contain hidden cameras (unlike the Glass, which has it as a primary feature), on the other front, asking a person to remove their Glass vs strip naked in a restaurant are two different levels of "acceptable" on the scale - i.e., one of them is and one of them absolutely isn't.
That argument - that my point is invalid because it's no different to the owner asking a women to strip naked or leave because she might have a hidden camera - is a strawman.
I'm not sure how I'm whining - I'm merely debating. We don't agree. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean I'm "whining" and making "false rhetorical claims".
Holy cow - one pound to lock up a shopping cart? In the US those carts typically require 25 cents.
Oh, and they usually design them so that they don't contain coins at all when they're parked, probably because at one point in time they had the same issue.
It's the opposite actually. The carts are all chained together with short lengths of chain that have a tab that engages with the mechanism. To free the end trolley in the line you insert a pound coin and that unlocks the mechanism like a seatbelt so you can use the cart. To get your pound back you need to put the card back in the stack and reconnect it to the one in front, which releases the coin.
It's a mechanism to ensure you don't walk off with the cart, or leave it abandoned in the middle of the parking lot (people who do that should be executed on the spot, or at the very least kneecapped for a first offence).
Of course, if you do walk off with the cart (or someone else's cart while they are browsing the shelves) you now have a pound stuck in it, which is hard to get out.
It's clear you're not interested in discussing this honestly, and instead have gone for increasingly disingenuous arguments and ultimately setting up a strawman.
If you want to claim "victory", by all means, and if you want to call me a coward for withdrawing from said debate then that's up to you. I'm not going to insult you though; what would be the point of that?
No one is claiming that these things are recording 24/7, but that they have the potential to be filming at any moment if the user chooses, and if they do so it looks no different to if they're just sitting there as normal.
Like I mentioned before, you have no idea if the guy is just looking at you or if he's filming you. The chances are he probably isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he effectively has a camera ready to record at very short notice without it being immediately obvious that's what he is doing (compared to being very obviously filmed with a mobile phone or some other form of common consumer camera).
The order was for him to ""remove that item, because it makes some people uncomfortable because it contains a camera and could be used to film his other customers". I added back the crucial detail that puts the request from the owner in proper context. There was a reason he was asked to remove it that went beyond it being just a plain fashion accessory.
Actually he can order him to leave his private business. What are you smoking?
Also, trying to downplay this as if the Glass is as innocuous as a "fashion accessory", like a pair of sunglasses or a hat that serves no other function other than being an item of clothing is disingenuous and you know it.
Unless you're saying that Google Glass is nothing but a fashion accessory that has no use at all, and is only worn because the user thinks it makes them cool?
Wow, that's very naive. People are filming with mobiles almost every time I go out. Strange people, strange cars, interesting scenery.
Get it real. It's public space. If you don't want to be filmed, politely ask. If not, sorry.
It's actually not a public space - it's owned by the owner who did, in fact, politely ask the guy not to (potentially) film his other patrons.
The point about people filming with mobiles is that you know when they are doing it because it's obvious, and they tend not to be doing it during dinner. Not so easy with the Glass user; is he filming you, or just looking over towards you? Is he filming now? What about now? The thing is a camera that is permanently pointing where the user is looking, which is different to a hand held device that you have to hold up to record with.
"Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking)... 0."
Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.
How exactly did you do that from a stock iPhone 4S?
I'm really curious.
If it was more than just deleting the app using the phone's built in method and then trashing the backup of the app from iTunes then I'm *really* interested.
Whether we define a virus as something you can trivially delete is an exercise for the reader.
Because many GMO supporters like to claim GMOs are required and will solve world hunger because they have significantly higher yields than non-GMO crops. That is a lie for more GMOs.
They talk about this because GM crops can be used in areas where traditional crops will not grow. It's not all about yield per acre, but how many acres you can plant and where you can plant them.
Re:PA says UI is a mess, Ars liked it.
on
Xbox One Released
·
· Score: 2
But then, all reviews are broadly subjective.
Or outright paid for.
I thought Ars was the "bought and paid for propaganda arm of Apple" according to some comments on here a while back. I assume Microsoft didm;t buy them as well. They must be living fat on the hog over there with all that cash rolling around.
(To be fair, they ultimately called it a tie between the PS4 and the Xbox in the end, but did say the Xbox UI was markedly better.)
I'd be very interested for someone to point out what part of the above comment is worthy of a troll mod. Or have we totally jumped the shark on what that particular mod option actually means?
PA says UI is a mess, Ars liked it.
on
Xbox One Released
·
· Score: 0
Funny that Penny Arcade calls the UI as confusing mess, while the Ars review actually praises the Xbox's implementation, especially when compared to the PS4's UI.
Antibiotics are difficult to research and make - even today, the best partially-synthetic ones are based on nightmare starting structures that are isolated from natural sources and then functionally modified.
Total synthesis of effective ones is extremely hard.
By comparison, things like statins, or asthma medication, or impotence drugs are comparatively easy to make and research (and note that this bar is very high - any drug research is difficult and expensive).
Slashdot Mirror
and by "free" replacement you mean $.35 a song right?
No, by "free" he the OP means "free as in beer".
So the authentication chip provides no value whatsoever to the customer, only negative value for cost-conscious customers who cannot purchase third party 'straight pieces of wire' that indeed should perform the function of a cable perfectly.
Goodness, you're on a roll today with your "facts".
The chip is not used for normal USB communication (because it's simply not necessary), but is part of the Lightning specification for other uses if the device is connected to something other than a USB port.
No, they didm't insist people needed "only Apple's branded cable" - they said that to ensure safety, you should only buy certified chargers and cables, and to emphasise this they initiated a trade in program where they would give you an Apple charger and cable if you sent them a cheap knockoff one.
Don';t let the facts get in the way of a good bash though, eh?
Oh, that's right, you're just "the rest of us" - you're not at all unbiased when it comes to discussions about Apple. My mistake!
Carry on with your gross inaccuracies presented as fact!
You mean like this guy?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4463987&cid=45471959
I guess he represents "the rest of [you]".
Why is it that people name their product the very opposite of what it is? Is it supposed to serve as some sort of rebuttal? Safe for who? The guy going 60mph? Anyone around him when he loses power steering and brakes?
It's clearly designed to bring police chases to a much more rapid end, so instead of chasing a guy at breakneck speed for miles and miles, with him maybe ending up wrapped around a tree, or crashing head on into a granny coming the other way, or a failed containment attempt resulting in him spinning out and crashing horrifically, instead the police just EMP the car and end the chase quickly.
No one said it had to be safe for the driver of the car. I assume it's called "safe stop" because the alternative is a risky high speed chase.
Seams like it's just batteries and few sensors mounted to the wheel and not the frame. Can't see it really changing anything since a conventional electric bicycle can be bought with more batteries for less money. Haven't looked at buying one. but I'm sure they have ones you can peddle on too. Regenerative braking is just looking online for circuits or hire an expert. Also, the fancy sensors could be added if desired along with a custom app. Give me $500,000 and a month; and I'll have 80-100% of their features (minus being on a wheel) on some prototype bikes. Give me some more money and another month or two; and I'll have the assemble line in China shipping them. Can't see it coming in over $150-500 retail depending on quality and features of the bike like suspension, steel or aluminum etc.
ahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you were serious? Let me laugh even harder.
Putting the batteries inside the wheel? Are you kidding me?
Yes, that's clearly *all* it does.
*eyeroll*
Would you like a spade?
For someone so determined to claim I was one component away from an "internet coward trifecta" you sure are showing your colours here.
You're directly questioning my intelligence rather than addressing or conceding the point. Calling me an idiot would be an insult, questioning my intelligence rather than addressing the argument is an ad hominem attack.
I assume you're waiting for me to snap at the bait and insult you so I can "complete the trifecta"?
You could just go back to the argument at hand. You seem to think the restaurant owner is in the wrong in asking a patron to remove a wearable camera/media device because he would clearly be in the wrong if he asked a woman to strip naked because she might have a hidden camera on her.
You then took this to it's extreme and suggested that my argument was invalid because the owner could ask a a female to strip naked because her clothes might contain a camera.
That's reductio ad absurdum, not strawman. Try not using big words anymore. They are too much for you.
I was wondering if you would counter with that. You just admitted to using logical fallacies in your own argument. It is also a straw man argument; you're claiming that because the owner could ask a female patron to strip naked that my argument that he is within his rights and justified to make requests of other patrons is fallacious. It's not mutually exclusive.
Funnily enough, it was you who then went for the ad hom, after suggesting that I should be the one to complete my "internet coward trifecta". Somewhat hypocritical, you think?
I gave no strawman. An analogy you don't like isn't a strawman. A strawman is making up an argument, then tearing it apart. Point out the strawman. There isn't one there. Just false rhetorical claims and whining by you.
My argument was that the owner was justified in asking the guy to remove his Glass because it contains a camera that could potentially be recording.
You then took this to it's extreme and suggested that my argument was invalid because the owner could ask a a female to strip naked because her clothes might contain a camera.
One on front, casual clothes typically do not contain hidden cameras (unlike the Glass, which has it as a primary feature), on the other front, asking a person to remove their Glass vs strip naked in a restaurant are two different levels of "acceptable" on the scale - i.e., one of them is and one of them absolutely isn't.
That argument - that my point is invalid because it's no different to the owner asking a women to strip naked or leave because she might have a hidden camera - is a strawman.
I'm not sure how I'm whining - I'm merely debating. We don't agree. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean I'm "whining" and making "false rhetorical claims".
Holy cow - one pound to lock up a shopping cart? In the US those carts typically require 25 cents.
Oh, and they usually design them so that they don't contain coins at all when they're parked, probably because at one point in time they had the same issue.
It's the opposite actually. The carts are all chained together with short lengths of chain that have a tab that engages with the mechanism. To free the end trolley in the line you insert a pound coin and that unlocks the mechanism like a seatbelt so you can use the cart. To get your pound back you need to put the card back in the stack and reconnect it to the one in front, which releases the coin.
It's a mechanism to ensure you don't walk off with the cart, or leave it abandoned in the middle of the parking lot (people who do that should be executed on the spot, or at the very least kneecapped for a first offence).
Of course, if you do walk off with the cart (or someone else's cart while they are browsing the shelves) you now have a pound stuck in it, which is hard to get out.
I see that you have no idea how an anechoic chamber works.
No, a straw man argument is just that.
It's clear you're not interested in discussing this honestly, and instead have gone for increasingly disingenuous arguments and ultimately setting up a strawman.
If you want to claim "victory", by all means, and if you want to call me a coward for withdrawing from said debate then that's up to you. I'm not going to insult you though; what would be the point of that?
Strawman argument detected.
I'm out.
You're still twisting in the wind here.
No one is claiming that these things are recording 24/7, but that they have the potential to be filming at any moment if the user chooses, and if they do so it looks no different to if they're just sitting there as normal.
Like I mentioned before, you have no idea if the guy is just looking at you or if he's filming you. The chances are he probably isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he effectively has a camera ready to record at very short notice without it being immediately obvious that's what he is doing (compared to being very obviously filmed with a mobile phone or some other form of common consumer camera).
The order was for him to ""remove that item, because it makes some people uncomfortable because it contains a camera and could be used to film his other customers". I added back the crucial detail that puts the request from the owner in proper context. There was a reason he was asked to remove it that went beyond it being just a plain fashion accessory.
Actually he can order him to leave his private business. What are you smoking?
Also, trying to downplay this as if the Glass is as innocuous as a "fashion accessory", like a pair of sunglasses or a hat that serves no other function other than being an item of clothing is disingenuous and you know it.
Unless you're saying that Google Glass is nothing but a fashion accessory that has no use at all, and is only worn because the user thinks it makes them cool?
Wow, that's very naive. People are filming with mobiles almost every time I go out. Strange people, strange cars, interesting scenery.
Get it real. It's public space. If you don't want to be filmed, politely ask. If not, sorry.
It's actually not a public space - it's owned by the owner who did, in fact, politely ask the guy not to (potentially) film his other patrons.
The point about people filming with mobiles is that you know when they are doing it because it's obvious, and they tend not to be doing it during dinner. Not so easy with the Glass user; is he filming you, or just looking over towards you? Is he filming now? What about now? The thing is a camera that is permanently pointing where the user is looking, which is different to a hand held device that you have to hold up to record with.
"Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0."
Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.
Nice selective emphasis.
"Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0."
Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.
How exactly did you do that from a stock iPhone 4S?
I'm really curious.
If it was more than just deleting the app using the phone's built in method and then trashing the backup of the app from iTunes then I'm *really* interested.
Whether we define a virus as something you can trivially delete is an exercise for the reader.
How else, pray tell, are in silica calculations going to be described any other way?
It's a little more than "speculation", but I figure your armchair science degree probably didn't prepare you for that.
Because many GMO supporters like to claim GMOs are required and will solve world hunger because they have significantly higher yields than non-GMO crops. That is a lie for more GMOs.
They talk about this because GM crops can be used in areas where traditional crops will not grow. It's not all about yield per acre, but how many acres you can plant and where you can plant them.
Or outright paid for.
I thought Ars was the "bought and paid for propaganda arm of Apple" according to some comments on here a while back. I assume Microsoft didm;t buy them as well. They must be living fat on the hog over there with all that cash rolling around.
(To be fair, they ultimately called it a tie between the PS4 and the Xbox in the end, but did say the Xbox UI was markedly better.)
I'd be very interested for someone to point out what part of the above comment is worthy of a troll mod. Or have we totally jumped the shark on what that particular mod option actually means?
Funny that Penny Arcade calls the UI as confusing mess, while the Ars review actually praises the Xbox's implementation, especially when compared to the PS4's UI.
But then, all reviews are broadly subjective.
Antibiotics are difficult to research and make - even today, the best partially-synthetic ones are based on nightmare starting structures that are isolated from natural sources and then functionally modified.
Total synthesis of effective ones is extremely hard.
By comparison, things like statins, or asthma medication, or impotence drugs are comparatively easy to make and research (and note that this bar is very high - any drug research is difficult and expensive).