That is a hilariously poorly designed charging device. What were they thinking when they stamped that one "ready for sale"? The one thing it has to do is support the phone while it charges and it simply... doesn't.
The 3D printed accessory is a neat solution though.
Wasn't it not too long ago that there was an article here about how Apple is locking out unauthorized chargers on new iPhones? In other words, it absolutely refuses to charge unless it's an Apple branded charger.
People here sure have short memories.
Yes, it was reported, but as with most click bait articles on slashdot, it wasn't true.
I have yet to run into a third party charger that an iOS device has rejected. Very occasionally my car's head unit flashes a warning on the phone's screen about being unsupported, but it is always when the car's power systems are in flux (ie, cranking the engine), so I assume it's detecting a voltage drop on the USB port or too much variation in the voltage. Once the engine has started though, it is quite happy to charge.
Like I say, I've had iOS devices across many generations, and have all manner of third party chargers and devices that they connect to, from windows computers, Mac computers, kindle chargers, game console USB ports, car stereos, cigarette-lighter-adapters, other people's phone chargers etc.
It seems the loudest shouting about Apple products not working with or "locking out" third party chargers seems to come from people like the OP who are self-described "Apple abhor rents". I guess that makes them expertly qualified to explain how they work in the real world.
I just remembered one edge case; an iPad first generation will not charge off the USB port on a Nintendo Wii, but an iPhone 3GS and 4 (haven't tried a 5 and up) will. I assume this is due to the amount of power that USB port can supply. There's no message on the iPad that says it's "unauthorised", it simply doesn't begin the charge cycle or register it is plugged into a power source. The iPhones charged as normal.
I assume this single case is enough to keep the myth alive that iOS devices don't charge on third party USB ports though, so there's that.
None of my iDevices have ever refused to charge on third party USB power supplies, but then I've never used a cheap shitty one. I have charged both iPhones and iPads from everything from my car's head unit (Kenwood, with USB cable in glove box), a Kindle charger, various laptops and desktops of assorted brand, a "no brand" cigarette lighter adapter that came with an FM transmitter thing for the car, and an android phone power supply (I forget which one now, it was some time ago).
So, either you're ignorant of what is actually going on here (you did say you are an Apple abhorrent), or you have a crappy adapter that the iPhone is shutting off to protect itself from.
I assume you're going for some sort of "Apple is crap/only works with expensive proprietary stuff they sell you" angle, but you're pretty wide of the mark. The fact that you think your adapter is beyond reproach is also slightly concerning, although I guess the worst it could do if it burns out is just to stop working (I have seen this happen with a cheap cigarette lighter adapter splitter when it pulled too much current).
I would suggest checking it out for your own safety, but you can probably just smile if it melts and remind yourself that at least you don't buy Apple products, so you're somehow ahead.
No other government agency is subject to the law that was specifically designed to cripple them. That alone should tell you all about what it's there for. (Hint: it's not about retirement safety for the employees).
All of the cost cutting measures that the USPS has tried are subject to congressional approval - for example, Congress sets the rates for postage (so the USPS can't raise rates to stop losing money, even though it only costs 46 cents to send a letter anywhere in the US), and they have tried other things like cutting Saturday delivery to save about 2 billion (Congress said "nope, not allowed!).
The republicans want to cripple it so they can soft sell the idea of privatising the postal service. It's much easier to parrot the "look how inefficient and crappy government services are!" when you actively work against them.
Without these ludicrous controls (that no other company or government agency is subject to) and the inability to control their own logistics (control of the cost of their services, veto of their operational decisions etc) then the USPS would be perfectly solvent.
"It actually makes sense for an entity like the postal service to be losing money."
Socialism is truly a mental disorder. Do you realize what you just said? Do you have to be reminded to breathe?
All you need to incentivize spending money wisely is privatization; if you waste money you suffer consequences (get fired),
The state is the only organization where you would find people saying 'it is better to waste money', because the money they waste is not theirs, and the supply is unlimited - they can always tax more or print more.
But you are advocating pissing away MY MONEY. I just wish you would have the balls to tell that to me to my face. But we all know you are nothing but a pathetic lying statist thief and a coward.
God I fucking hate socialists.
The post office is self-funded. It has not received taxpayer funding for a long time.
So, they're not pissing away "your" money.
Besides, the only reason they are officially losing money is because they were forced via an act of congress to pre-fund a retirement that is extremely onerous and far beyond what any private company would have to do. This was done so that the republicans can say "hey, look, the USPS isn't working! Let's privatise it!".
Sorry to burden you with facts, it looked like you had a good head of steam up there for your frothing libertarian rant.
Apple has chosen as its trademark a small, flat, long, and narrow rectangle with rounded corners. And Apple made a big deal over this. Apple made their bed, let them sleep in it.
Samsung ended up with the rounded smooth shapes. Samsung should patent the look and feel of phones with curved screens. They could file separate patents for different curvatures.
Err... they do?
Samsung has design patents on its own phones too.
You don't think design patents are unique to Apple do you?
It boils down to "people who buy Apple products are idiots". You can dress it up as much as you like, but that is what you're saying.
It's not at all accurate, of course, but you are entitled to your own opinion.
If pointing out that your large generalisation is not at all an accurate representation of Apple's customers, and that it actually follows a pretty standard distribution common to almost all retail products is somehow being a "fanboi" then I guess you are just having trouble seeing past the fog caused by your seeming hate of a company that makes products you do not personally want to use.
I don't agree with Google's octopus policies regarding privacy but you are very right about the Nexus 5. It has single-handedly managed to make any prospective iPhone buyer look like a complete fool.
In the same way that store brand corn flakes make anyone who buys Kellog's brand corn flakes a complete fool?
In terms of running simple HTML5 animations (requestAnimationFrame), it's absolutely true that Safari blows Chrome out of the water. I haven't found an Android device that can do much more than 30 FPS, with a lot of variability, while even an old-ass iPhone 4S does a consistent 60FPS. (This can easily be tested in about 10 lines of js.)
Chrome is a fine browser in other respects, its just not as good for HTML-based games or apps.
He's talking about Chrome on iOS because third party browsers are limited to the non-sandboxed older version of the JS engine on iOS, whereas Safari gets to used the sandboxed and higher performance rewritten Nitro engine. (Sandboxing doesn't make it faster, but it creates a technical barrier since the third party devs don't have direct access to those APIs).
This segregation was cried and wailed about by people like the OP as "Apple crippling third party browsers". In practice, as has been demonstrated by various tech blogs running benchmarks, it doesn't affect real world use very much. Yes, the new JS engine is faster, but it's hardly "crippling" other browsers - especially since all browsers on iOS use the same Webkit engine (unless they do server-side rendering).
People like you badly need for there to be products other than Apple products. For some reason it matters that you have a company's product-line to champion.
It's really a strange phenomenon and Apple takes great advantage of it.
I do?
Or again are you just describing any company that makes a product that people like to buy.
Do you say the same thing about people who like Fords? Or Kellog's Cornflakes instead of the store brand?
What's wrong with having a positive opinion of a company? Other than the fact that you don;t like them of course.
Benchmarks only don't matter when Apple is winning them. At all other times they are the gold standard of how good a phone is, and should be used to bash Apple's "slow, outdated, weak" hardware at every turn.
However, when Apple is on top in the benchmarks, switch to Plan B and talk about price.
All that suggests is that Chrome for Android isn't optimized for Sunspider, where as Safari for iOS is. Since it is impossible to run the same browser on both platforms (Chrome for iOS is just a wrapper for Apple's crippled HTML renderer that runs about half the speed that Safari does) there is no meaningful comparison here.
The Ars review of the camera was a bit harsh. Performance in most conditions is pretty good and they didn't even try out the optical image stabilization. Other reviews have been more favourable, and well frankly it costs half the price so 10% worse low light performance than a phone costing $350 more seems like a reasonable trade-off. Image stabilization is going to be more valuable to most users anyway, especially for video.
My goodness, does it make you feel any shame to spout the clearly obvious lies that you do?
"Crippled renderer that runs at half the speed of Safari". You have a future in political campaigning, kid. First, it's the JS engine, not the HTML renderer, but even then, there's no "half the speed" anywhere to be found.
Conclusion: both browsers have benefits that make them fast in certain situations, but overall they are pretty close. The wild lies you're claiming about half the performance on Chrome are so laughably inaccurate that it's almost not worth replying because I know you're simply so set in your entrenched little worldview, there's no changing your mind with anything as absurd as actual facts.
You know if you said that about an Apple device someone would come back with "ah, but that's just Apple's evil scheme to make you buy needless overpriced accessories! My Android phone doesn't need to have two chargers!"
mAh rating of the battery is the next "Mhz myth" - just look at Apple's new iPad. The battery is smaller than the previous generation, but because of the hardware they put inside it, the battery life went up. This is mainly due to a large reduction in the power needed to run the screen and the backlight in this case.
The Nexus 5 is likely to be seeing similar gains as SoCs and screens etc get better power performance. Then it's just a question of your design brief - do you keep the battery the same size and push the performance envelope with this new headroom or do you shrink the battery and the device to make the device smaller for the same performance profile. Apple always chooses the latter it seems, or in the case of the jump to the new A7 arch, a bit of a middle ground.
And the Nexus 5 has a SoC with 2 more cores, 80% higher max clock rate and double the RAM. That it can only keep up is pretty amusing.
What is amusing is that the Nexus 5 costs half what the iPhone does. Apple's target demographic has always been people with more money than brains. Thwok....ball's in your court.
That's not really an argument.
Remove the word "Apple" from your argument and you're essentially saying that anyone who buys any product that costs more than the absolute cheapest product available in that class is an idiot.
This sort of bell curve of product purchasing is totally accepted in everyday life (cars, food, houses, sports equipment, televisions, jewellery, books, entertainment, holidays...) but somehow when the same metric is applied to computers, unless you buy from the bottom of the discount bargain bin, you're suddenly an idiot.
It's certainly a strange argument coming from the corner than claims to promote user choice. Or is it only the right choice if they make the same choice that you do? Anything else is the consumer clearly demonstrating they have "more money than brains"? Is it part of the Android experience to not just enjoy the phone and ecosystem you selected based on your own criteria, but also to insult anyone who had a different set of selection criteria to you? Put another way; I don't think all Android users are idiots for not choosing iOS, or OS X.
As is predictable in this thread, when Apple is on top on benchmarks, suddenly they don't matter. When Apple is behind on benchmarks they get bashed for having "expensive, old hardware that can't keep up". In other words, the argument positions between the extremes of the camps swaps over. Still, the underlying "if you didn't buy an Android you have more money than brains" always persists.
The recent financial report from Apple has demonstrated that they now make a sizeable portion of their gross revenue from the iTunes/App store. This is a change from just a few years ago where it was a tiny sliver.
The store has been wildly successful for them and third party developers.
How are we supposed to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles?
How were the original writers of the second amendment meant to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles. Why even write the thing in the first place, if assault rifles are not available!
When they talk about "nitrogen enriched" fuel they are talking about nitrogen compounds like NO2 and others - precisely because nitrogen *wants* to be N2, plus it's a good source of oxygen too. You absolutely want nitrogen compounds that are going to assist in the oxidation of those "energy rich" carbon chains, by bringing along oxygen and decomposing into N2 releasing gobs of energy.
It's why explosives work too - pack your compound full of nitrogen in such a way that it will stoichiometrically decompose into a miscellaneous product and nitrogen gas, then give it a kick and let that massive triple bond enthalpy do the work for you.
There's a reason high explosives are usually very high in nitrogen per unit mass.
No dishonesty in labeling, just a misunderstanding of the chemistry involved.
How are any of those things anti-gun or anti-second amendment?
All of the proposed things are about gun safety, not about taking guns away from people. The second amendment is safe, kids.
Chicken little, the sky is not falling. You don';t have to snuggle with your shotgun in bed in fear of Obama "taking" it from you - well, unless you fail the background check (but then what were you doing with it in the first place).
Slashdot Mirror
That is a hilariously poorly designed charging device. What were they thinking when they stamped that one "ready for sale"? The one thing it has to do is support the phone while it charges and it simply... doesn't.
The 3D printed accessory is a neat solution though.
Wasn't it not too long ago that there was an article here about how Apple is locking out unauthorized chargers on new iPhones? In other words, it absolutely refuses to charge unless it's an Apple branded charger.
People here sure have short memories.
Yes, it was reported, but as with most click bait articles on slashdot, it wasn't true.
I have yet to run into a third party charger that an iOS device has rejected. Very occasionally my car's head unit flashes a warning on the phone's screen about being unsupported, but it is always when the car's power systems are in flux (ie, cranking the engine), so I assume it's detecting a voltage drop on the USB port or too much variation in the voltage. Once the engine has started though, it is quite happy to charge.
Like I say, I've had iOS devices across many generations, and have all manner of third party chargers and devices that they connect to, from windows computers, Mac computers, kindle chargers, game console USB ports, car stereos, cigarette-lighter-adapters, other people's phone chargers etc.
It seems the loudest shouting about Apple products not working with or "locking out" third party chargers seems to come from people like the OP who are self-described "Apple abhor rents". I guess that makes them expertly qualified to explain how they work in the real world.
I just remembered one edge case; an iPad first generation will not charge off the USB port on a Nintendo Wii, but an iPhone 3GS and 4 (haven't tried a 5 and up) will. I assume this is due to the amount of power that USB port can supply. There's no message on the iPad that says it's "unauthorised", it simply doesn't begin the charge cycle or register it is plugged into a power source. The iPhones charged as normal.
I assume this single case is enough to keep the myth alive that iOS devices don't charge on third party USB ports though, so there's that.
Your daughter is correct. Your dongle is a POS.
None of my iDevices have ever refused to charge on third party USB power supplies, but then I've never used a cheap shitty one. I have charged both iPhones and iPads from everything from my car's head unit (Kenwood, with USB cable in glove box), a Kindle charger, various laptops and desktops of assorted brand, a "no brand" cigarette lighter adapter that came with an FM transmitter thing for the car, and an android phone power supply (I forget which one now, it was some time ago).
So, either you're ignorant of what is actually going on here (you did say you are an Apple abhorrent), or you have a crappy adapter that the iPhone is shutting off to protect itself from.
I assume you're going for some sort of "Apple is crap/only works with expensive proprietary stuff they sell you" angle, but you're pretty wide of the mark. The fact that you think your adapter is beyond reproach is also slightly concerning, although I guess the worst it could do if it burns out is just to stop working (I have seen this happen with a cheap cigarette lighter adapter splitter when it pulled too much current).
I would suggest checking it out for your own safety, but you can probably just smile if it melts and remind yourself that at least you don't buy Apple products, so you're somehow ahead.
Speak for yourself, I only light my cigars with whale oil.
No other government agency is subject to the law that was specifically designed to cripple them. That alone should tell you all about what it's there for. (Hint: it's not about retirement safety for the employees).
All of the cost cutting measures that the USPS has tried are subject to congressional approval - for example, Congress sets the rates for postage (so the USPS can't raise rates to stop losing money, even though it only costs 46 cents to send a letter anywhere in the US), and they have tried other things like cutting Saturday delivery to save about 2 billion (Congress said "nope, not allowed!).
The republicans want to cripple it so they can soft sell the idea of privatising the postal service. It's much easier to parrot the "look how inefficient and crappy government services are!" when you actively work against them.
Without these ludicrous controls (that no other company or government agency is subject to) and the inability to control their own logistics (control of the cost of their services, veto of their operational decisions etc) then the USPS would be perfectly solvent.
These socialist douchebags piss our and our childrens money away to the tune of 17BILLION fucking dollars and you want me to fucking be nice about it.
FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCKS
What money? The USPS is not taxpayer funded.
Whose money are they "pissing away" exactly?
"It actually makes sense for an entity like the postal service to be losing money."
Socialism is truly a mental disorder. Do you realize what you just said? Do you have to be reminded to breathe?
All you need to incentivize spending money wisely is privatization; if you waste money you suffer consequences (get fired),
The state is the only organization where you would find people saying 'it is better to waste money', because the money they waste is not theirs, and the supply is unlimited - they can always tax more or print more.
But you are advocating pissing away MY MONEY. I just wish you would have the balls to tell that to me to my face. But we all know you are nothing but a pathetic lying statist thief and a coward.
God I fucking hate socialists.
The post office is self-funded. It has not received taxpayer funding for a long time.
So, they're not pissing away "your" money.
Besides, the only reason they are officially losing money is because they were forced via an act of congress to pre-fund a retirement that is extremely onerous and far beyond what any private company would have to do. This was done so that the republicans can say "hey, look, the USPS isn't working! Let's privatise it!".
Sorry to burden you with facts, it looked like you had a good head of steam up there for your frothing libertarian rant.
Apple has chosen as its trademark a small, flat, long, and narrow rectangle with rounded corners. And Apple made a big deal over this. Apple made their bed, let them sleep in it.
Samsung ended up with the rounded smooth shapes. Samsung should patent the look and feel of phones with curved screens. They could file separate patents for different curvatures.
Err... they do?
Samsung has design patents on its own phones too.
You don't think design patents are unique to Apple do you?
If the store brand is just as good, then yes.
Why?
Is price the only criterion that matters?
You just restated your argument.
It boils down to "people who buy Apple products are idiots". You can dress it up as much as you like, but that is what you're saying.
It's not at all accurate, of course, but you are entitled to your own opinion.
If pointing out that your large generalisation is not at all an accurate representation of Apple's customers, and that it actually follows a pretty standard distribution common to almost all retail products is somehow being a "fanboi" then I guess you are just having trouble seeing past the fog caused by your seeming hate of a company that makes products you do not personally want to use.
I don't agree with Google's octopus policies regarding privacy but you are very right about the Nexus 5. It has single-handedly managed to make any prospective iPhone buyer look like a complete fool.
In the same way that store brand corn flakes make anyone who buys Kellog's brand corn flakes a complete fool?
In terms of running simple HTML5 animations (requestAnimationFrame), it's absolutely true that Safari blows Chrome out of the water. I haven't found an Android device that can do much more than 30 FPS, with a lot of variability, while even an old-ass iPhone 4S does a consistent 60FPS. (This can easily be tested in about 10 lines of js.)
Chrome is a fine browser in other respects, its just not as good for HTML-based games or apps.
He's talking about Chrome on iOS because third party browsers are limited to the non-sandboxed older version of the JS engine on iOS, whereas Safari gets to used the sandboxed and higher performance rewritten Nitro engine. (Sandboxing doesn't make it faster, but it creates a technical barrier since the third party devs don't have direct access to those APIs).
This segregation was cried and wailed about by people like the OP as "Apple crippling third party browsers". In practice, as has been demonstrated by various tech blogs running benchmarks, it doesn't affect real world use very much. Yes, the new JS engine is faster, but it's hardly "crippling" other browsers - especially since all browsers on iOS use the same Webkit engine (unless they do server-side rendering).
People like you badly need for there to be products other than Apple products. For some reason it matters that you have a company's product-line to champion.
It's really a strange phenomenon and Apple takes great advantage of it.
I do?
Or again are you just describing any company that makes a product that people like to buy.
Do you say the same thing about people who like Fords? Or Kellog's Cornflakes instead of the store brand?
What's wrong with having a positive opinion of a company? Other than the fact that you don;t like them of course.
Benchmarks only don't matter when Apple is winning them. At all other times they are the gold standard of how good a phone is, and should be used to bash Apple's "slow, outdated, weak" hardware at every turn.
However, when Apple is on top in the benchmarks, switch to Plan B and talk about price.
All that suggests is that Chrome for Android isn't optimized for Sunspider, where as Safari for iOS is. Since it is impossible to run the same browser on both platforms (Chrome for iOS is just a wrapper for Apple's crippled HTML renderer that runs about half the speed that Safari does) there is no meaningful comparison here.
The Ars review of the camera was a bit harsh. Performance in most conditions is pretty good and they didn't even try out the optical image stabilization. Other reviews have been more favourable, and well frankly it costs half the price so 10% worse low light performance than a phone costing $350 more seems like a reasonable trade-off. Image stabilization is going to be more valuable to most users anyway, especially for video.
My goodness, does it make you feel any shame to spout the clearly obvious lies that you do?
"Crippled renderer that runs at half the speed of Safari". You have a future in political campaigning, kid. First, it's the JS engine, not the HTML renderer, but even then, there's no "half the speed" anywhere to be found.
First google result:
http://www.guypo.com/mobile/ios-browsers-speed-bakeoff/
Conclusion: both browsers have benefits that make them fast in certain situations, but overall they are pretty close. The wild lies you're claiming about half the performance on Chrome are so laughably inaccurate that it's almost not worth replying because I know you're simply so set in your entrenched little worldview, there's no changing your mind with anything as absurd as actual facts.
Charger at work, charger at home. Problem solved.
You know if you said that about an Apple device someone would come back with "ah, but that's just Apple's evil scheme to make you buy needless overpriced accessories! My Android phone doesn't need to have two chargers!"
Just saying, but you know it's the truth.
mAh rating of the battery is the next "Mhz myth" - just look at Apple's new iPad. The battery is smaller than the previous generation, but because of the hardware they put inside it, the battery life went up. This is mainly due to a large reduction in the power needed to run the screen and the backlight in this case.
The Nexus 5 is likely to be seeing similar gains as SoCs and screens etc get better power performance. Then it's just a question of your design brief - do you keep the battery the same size and push the performance envelope with this new headroom or do you shrink the battery and the device to make the device smaller for the same performance profile. Apple always chooses the latter it seems, or in the case of the jump to the new A7 arch, a bit of a middle ground.
And the Nexus 5 has a SoC with 2 more cores, 80% higher max clock rate and double the RAM. That it can only keep up is pretty amusing.
What is amusing is that the Nexus 5 costs half what the iPhone does. Apple's target demographic has always been people with more money than brains. Thwok....ball's in your court.
That's not really an argument.
Remove the word "Apple" from your argument and you're essentially saying that anyone who buys any product that costs more than the absolute cheapest product available in that class is an idiot.
This sort of bell curve of product purchasing is totally accepted in everyday life (cars, food, houses, sports equipment, televisions, jewellery, books, entertainment, holidays...) but somehow when the same metric is applied to computers, unless you buy from the bottom of the discount bargain bin, you're suddenly an idiot.
It's certainly a strange argument coming from the corner than claims to promote user choice. Or is it only the right choice if they make the same choice that you do? Anything else is the consumer clearly demonstrating they have "more money than brains"? Is it part of the Android experience to not just enjoy the phone and ecosystem you selected based on your own criteria, but also to insult anyone who had a different set of selection criteria to you? Put another way; I don't think all Android users are idiots for not choosing iOS, or OS X.
As is predictable in this thread, when Apple is on top on benchmarks, suddenly they don't matter. When Apple is behind on benchmarks they get bashed for having "expensive, old hardware that can't keep up". In other words, the argument positions between the extremes of the camps swaps over. Still, the underlying "if you didn't buy an Android you have more money than brains" always persists.
Thwok; ball is back in your court.
Makes a change from bombing shepherds on a mountainside with B2's in the name of "freedom".
Although, I think I'd be more worried about the legal overreach. Lawyers are more dangerous than nuclear-capable stealth aircraft.
This used to be the case.
The recent financial report from Apple has demonstrated that they now make a sizeable portion of their gross revenue from the iTunes/App store. This is a change from just a few years ago where it was a tiny sliver.
The store has been wildly successful for them and third party developers.
How are we supposed to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles?
How were the original writers of the second amendment meant to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles. Why even write the thing in the first place, if assault rifles are not available!
Interesting that you think the term "assault rifle" was in the minds of the people who actually wrote the second amendment.
How is that antigun or anti-second amendment?
All I see is promotion of responsible gun ownership and safety. (also, note: I am pro gun)
You still forgot to log in. You should probably fix that.
When they talk about "nitrogen enriched" fuel they are talking about nitrogen compounds like NO2 and others - precisely because nitrogen *wants* to be N2, plus it's a good source of oxygen too. You absolutely want nitrogen compounds that are going to assist in the oxidation of those "energy rich" carbon chains, by bringing along oxygen and decomposing into N2 releasing gobs of energy.
It's why explosives work too - pack your compound full of nitrogen in such a way that it will stoichiometrically decompose into a miscellaneous product and nitrogen gas, then give it a kick and let that massive triple bond enthalpy do the work for you.
There's a reason high explosives are usually very high in nitrogen per unit mass.
No dishonesty in labeling, just a misunderstanding of the chemistry involved.
How are any of those things anti-gun or anti-second amendment?
All of the proposed things are about gun safety, not about taking guns away from people. The second amendment is safe, kids.
Chicken little, the sky is not falling. You don';t have to snuggle with your shotgun in bed in fear of Obama "taking" it from you - well, unless you fail the background check (but then what were you doing with it in the first place).
Also, you forgot to log in.