"But the claim I am trying to refute is that this works with ANY application doing ANYTHING."
"And yet it moves." -- Galileo, responding to the people of the day who argued that the earth was the centre of the universe.
The fact is that WiFi assist works. So clearly the problem is in your inability to work out how to do it. That you don't know everything as you think you do. It's not that it doesn't work.
So what BasilBrush, and the press releases from Apple imply, is that OS9 has a new feature no other OS has: it can transparently make streams continue, on another interface, with no support from the application software.
I've since been informed that Samsung have implemented the same thing on some of their phones this last few months.
Your idea of what's not possible is wrong. You have a flawed model.
You don't get to set the cap. You may buy a package with a certain cap. You hit that, and you start getting charged.
I use Pay-As-You-Go with unlimited data. Even with unlimited data, PAYG means the network can't charge you for a service unless you've given the money for it in advance.
I don't believe in phone contracts. They are one sided in favour of the network. Why agree to such a contract?
It covers the time when you walk away from WiFi and the phone can still see the WiFi, but data packets are failing. And it does so transparently and without waiting for (longish) time out.
So there's no failed page load or dropped video on iOS9 like there would be on iOS8 or any other mobile OS.
There's 2 places I consistently get hit with that. My work car park, and this one particular bit of road where there's a WiFi network on a known cloud service. The work car park one is particularly annoying because I usually want to do something on the phone as I leave work.
It's the feature I'm most looking forward to when I get a 6s.
I don't see how netflix could automagically start streaming to your new IP address, so most likely, you will have to restart the stream from the beginning.
You might not understand how, but that's EXACTLY what this does transparently. It's one of the use cases - streaming a video, moving away from the WiFi, and the stream continues transparently.
Possibly you don't realise that just because it's streaming doesn't mean it isn't being delivered in packets. And packets can be re-routed and resent.
You might not be used to being able to swap and change like this on your existing phone. But that's the point, this is a new feature that other OSs don't do as yet.
As I understand it the difference is that as soon as the WiFi signal is seen to be failing the request for a packet is send straight away via Cellular. And whichever comes back first will get used. The WiFi will eventually properly time out, but starting to use Cellular doesn't have to wait for that. The details might vary slightly from this, but that's the essence.
The fact that the dollar bills used to keep track of transaction are recycled doesn't change the fact that the money spent is gone, wasted.
It really does. The car's trash, but the money still exists. I can show you the money before and I can show you the money after.
Consider a machines which creates reactions with these properties: Inputs: Compound A, compound B, energy Outputs: Compound A, Compound B
Well of course there's something you missed out because such a machine is disobeying the first law of thermodynamics.
Consider this machine: Inputs: Gold coins (worth $100), energy (work, worth $100) Outputs: Gold coins (worth $100)
And there you really show where your misunderstanding of money is. There is no "worth". People may or may not hand over (circulate) money for all sorts of reasons including the conversion of energy from one form or another. Worth is only in the mind of the person willing (or not) to pay. The money continues regardless. It simply may be currently in the pocket of person B rather than person A.
That second machine is a govt program.
Now there's your problem. Your hatred of government is stopping you from seeing what's self evident. You imagine that money that's taken in tax and is spent by government somehow disappears. But clearly it doesn't. It simply transfers to another person (or organisation). It boosts the economy by circulating the money (economy is flow) - whilst also doing something worthwhile for the public in the process..
If Thatcherism was so unpopular, why didn't Thatcher lose?
Falklands. Which isn't really Thatcherism. Thatcherism is economics (monetarism).
In the UK you had a massive unemployment crises. Both problems were solved, by right-wing governments
Not really. As I said Labour were campaigned against for having 1 million unemployed. Thatcher took it to 3 million. And the apparent wealth of the late 80s was North Sea Oil revenue, plus selling off nationalised companies, selling off public housing plus people feeling richer due to house-price inflation. None of these are part of a real sustainable economic boom, they are selling off the family silver. Thatcherism was economically illiterate, and a failure.
Even those of us who agree with you in theory wonder about how in touch you are with reality, and worry that you'll do shit like re-open coal mines that were a useless drag on the economy from the 50s until Thatcher closed them.
The closing of the mines was never about economics. Thatcher closed them because the mineworker's union had brought down the previous Tory government. For sure there's been times since when mining wouldn't have been worth it due to the world price, and other times when it would. But they aren't going to be reopened - they are destroyed. And Corbyn values the environment.
Sanders the front-runner? What are you smoking?
Just something I heard in passing on Colbert. Looks like it was in Iowa and or New Hampshire. It's still remarkable.
probably because said friend has read the economic data (which shows that, on balance, Thatcher was right), but never seen the bits of the UK Thatcher had to destroy to be right economically.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong on all counts.
Here's the thing. For the past 25 years, neo-liberalism has been the only game in town. People have become to accept is as being the natural way. That's why Corbyn is getting a lot of opposition right now. But the election os 4.5 years away. That's a long time for the idea of a real alternative to become familiar. And when it comes to it, more than left/right ideology, what the UK electorate votes for is a leader with conviction. That appears to believe what he says and says what he believes. Miliband didn't have that. Corbyn does.
Maybe you can make a convincing argument that sending another probe to Mars is more important than traffic safety.
Why would I do that? The answer is for the government to spend on both. It's not necessary to chose. That's a false dichotomy.
The point is this: Is it a worthwhile thing. Then the government should spend on it. If not then they shouldn't. They don't have to choose between worthwhile things because some small-government people don't understand economics. There are no choices between spending on this worthwhile thing or that worthwhile thing - they are false dichotomies.
Your burning of a car example is excluded simply because it's not a worthwhile thing for a government to do. No other reason.
A mission to Mars should simply be judged on whether it is a worthwhile thing, employing people for a worthwhile result, not on whether it's more important than some other arbitrary government spend.
Lighting a car on fire shows that when money is spent on something stupid, value is actually lost. GP got confused and thought that as long as cash isn't burned, value isn't wasted. Burning the car is a vivid way of showing that spending money on something wasteful does in fact "use up" money aka resources.
No one is arguing with the fact that resources can be used up. It was there in my first post, but you missed it.
But money (such as tax) is not used up. It just keeps circulating. Trying to restrict the amount to which the government circulates the money via tax and spend is bad for the economy.
But when you're talking about people who would willingly take a one way ticket to Mars, I think you can legitimately speculate on their suitability and level of craziness.
No you can't. A person simply having a different desire to you is not evidence of mental illness.
On a year by year basis there is a limited amount of money that is received by the government through taxes.
Of course it's not limited. The more the economy grows, the bigger the tax take. The bigger the tax take the more the government can spend. The more the government s[pends the more the economy grows. It's a virtuous circle.
Even if that objection were true, it doesn't apply here in that this isn't destruction, it's construction, in the long term we get a Mars Outpost from it, and in the short term we get lots of science and the off-shoots of that science.
We need number so we can make a valid decision. Do we have enough tax money to divert to this project without crippling government services?
The question implies a falsehood. There isn't a limited tax fund from which different things must be picked. Tax is a flow, not a cost. And keeping it flowing is beneficial to the economy. The moon programme for example expanded the economy. Without the moon program, the US would be poorer.
Even with a "budget" it's not that easy. Most money government spends isn't lost. It's just recirculated in the economy. You pay scientists and engineers, and they pay tax, and they buy things in stores that pay tax etc, and the GDP goes up. For sure the hardware that is sent to Mars and the energy used to do it is gone. But most money spent isn't.
People came to america because it was "the land of plenty" (Pretty much the opposite of Mars)
Well rather a lot of them were running away from something. That side would be true of Mars volunteers too.
not just the few crazies.
With a world population of 7 billion, there's plenty of people that want to go to Mars, and yet are not so crazy they can't be allowed to go.
Until then, you're much better off building condos in the sahara with nice swimming pools because that will be a a lot cheaper and a MUCH MUCH easier sell.
Right. And instead of visiting the moon they could have... But I'm glad they visited the moon.
So as I say it's worthless as many of those polled don't even remember her term in office. A friend of mine, who is progressive and a feminist was sticking up for Thatcher a while ago, saying she was attacked just because she was a woman. Now for sure she would not have been defending Thatcher had she been old enough to actually remember her term of office. Her Feminist assumption that the attacks were based on her gender would be replaced with the knowledge that she was the most callous prime-minister we ever had.
or extrapolate from the fact no Prime Minister has been elected on an anti=-Thatcher platform.
There hasn't been one to vote for. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been votes were one offered. See the complete surprise of both the Labour establishment and the media over the landslide election of Corbyn as Labour leader. He was 100/1 or more before the voting started.
It's clear there has been a change in the political weather. Not just in the UK but internationally. In the 70s and earlier there was a mix of left and right government, but in the 80s through to the 00s, Right wing Neo-Liberalism rose internationally. If you're young, it may have seemed like the natural order, because it's all you ever saw. But it was just a phase. There was a time before it. And now we're beginning to see a time after it. Socialist parties in Greece and Spain. Socialist Corbyn winning the popular vote over Neo-liberal New Labour.
Even In America - A black president, "socialist" obamacare, gay marriage and cannabis decriminalisation. No one would have believed it a decade ago. And now, I see the front runner in the polls for the Democrats is Socialist Bernie Sanders. Quite something for such a neo-liberal country. I'm not saying he's going to get all the way to the Whitehouse, but it's certainly an indication that the times, they are a-changing.
Finally - you can't extrapolate the US respect for (ex)presidents to the UK. It's not even slightly similar. We don't even understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
"But the claim I am trying to refute is that this works with ANY application doing ANYTHING."
"And yet it moves." -- Galileo, responding to the people of the day who argued that the earth was the centre of the universe.
The fact is that WiFi assist works. So clearly the problem is in your inability to work out how to do it. That you don't know everything as you think you do. It's not that it doesn't work.
So what BasilBrush, and the press releases from Apple imply, is that OS9 has a new feature no other OS has: it can transparently make streams continue, on another interface, with no support from the application software.
I've since been informed that Samsung have implemented the same thing on some of their phones this last few months.
Your idea of what's not possible is wrong. You have a flawed model.
Then either it doesn't work as well, or you've got a crap service plan where you're paying by the MB.
For my iPhone and unlimited data, it's the best feature of iOS9.
Don't try to apply your 1990s networking knowledge to modern mobile IP. A fuck of a lot has changed.
I still suspect Apple plays the man in the middle.
That's because you still don't know what you are talking about. No, there's nothing gets sent or requested from Apple for WiFi assist.
And YES, streaming video is normally delivered in packets. Fire up Charles or another packet sniffer and LOOK.
You don't get to set the cap. You may buy a package with a certain cap. You hit that, and you start getting charged.
I use Pay-As-You-Go with unlimited data. Even with unlimited data, PAYG means the network can't charge you for a service unless you've given the money for it in advance.
I don't believe in phone contracts. They are one sided in favour of the network. Why agree to such a contract?
It covers the time when you walk away from WiFi and the phone can still see the WiFi, but data packets are failing. And it does so transparently and without waiting for (longish) time out.
So there's no failed page load or dropped video on iOS9 like there would be on iOS8 or any other mobile OS.
There's 2 places I consistently get hit with that. My work car park, and this one particular bit of road where there's a WiFi network on a known cloud service. The work car park one is particularly annoying because I usually want to do something on the phone as I leave work.
It's the feature I'm most looking forward to when I get a 6s.
I don't see how netflix could automagically start streaming to your new IP address, so most likely, you will have to restart the stream from the beginning.
You might not understand how, but that's EXACTLY what this does transparently. It's one of the use cases - streaming a video, moving away from the WiFi, and the stream continues transparently.
Possibly you don't realise that just because it's streaming doesn't mean it isn't being delivered in packets. And packets can be re-routed and resent.
You might not be used to being able to swap and change like this on your existing phone. But that's the point, this is a new feature that other OSs don't do as yet.
As I understand it the difference is that as soon as the WiFi signal is seen to be failing the request for a packet is send straight away via Cellular. And whichever comes back first will get used. The WiFi will eventually properly time out, but starting to use Cellular doesn't have to wait for that. The details might vary slightly from this, but that's the essence.
The fact that the dollar bills used to keep track of transaction are recycled doesn't change the fact that the money spent is gone, wasted.
It really does. The car's trash, but the money still exists. I can show you the money before and I can show you the money after.
Consider a machines which creates reactions with these properties:
Inputs: Compound A, compound B, energy
Outputs: Compound A, Compound B
Well of course there's something you missed out because such a machine is disobeying the first law of thermodynamics.
Consider this machine:
Inputs: Gold coins (worth $100), energy (work, worth $100)
Outputs: Gold coins (worth $100)
And there you really show where your misunderstanding of money is. There is no "worth". People may or may not hand over (circulate) money for all sorts of reasons including the conversion of energy from one form or another. Worth is only in the mind of the person willing (or not) to pay. The money continues regardless. It simply may be currently in the pocket of person B rather than person A.
That second machine is a govt program.
Now there's your problem. Your hatred of government is stopping you from seeing what's self evident. You imagine that money that's taken in tax and is spent by government somehow disappears. But clearly it doesn't. It simply transfers to another person (or organisation). It boosts the economy by circulating the money (economy is flow) - whilst also doing something worthwhile for the public in the process..
If Thatcherism was so unpopular, why didn't Thatcher lose?
Falklands. Which isn't really Thatcherism. Thatcherism is economics (monetarism).
In the UK you had a massive unemployment crises. Both problems were solved, by right-wing governments
Not really. As I said Labour were campaigned against for having 1 million unemployed. Thatcher took it to 3 million. And the apparent wealth of the late 80s was North Sea Oil revenue, plus selling off nationalised companies, selling off public housing plus people feeling richer due to house-price inflation. None of these are part of a real sustainable economic boom, they are selling off the family silver. Thatcherism was economically illiterate, and a failure.
Even those of us who agree with you in theory wonder about how in touch you are with reality, and worry that you'll do shit like re-open coal mines that were a useless drag on the economy from the 50s until Thatcher closed them.
The closing of the mines was never about economics. Thatcher closed them because the mineworker's union had brought down the previous Tory government. For sure there's been times since when mining wouldn't have been worth it due to the world price, and other times when it would. But they aren't going to be reopened - they are destroyed. And Corbyn values the environment.
Sanders the front-runner? What are you smoking?
Just something I heard in passing on Colbert. Looks like it was in Iowa and or New Hampshire. It's still remarkable.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ba...
probably because said friend has read the economic data (which shows that, on balance, Thatcher was right), but never seen the bits of the UK Thatcher had to destroy to be right economically.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong on all counts.
Here's the thing. For the past 25 years, neo-liberalism has been the only game in town. People have become to accept is as being the natural way. That's why Corbyn is getting a lot of opposition right now. But the election os 4.5 years away. That's a long time for the idea of a real alternative to become familiar. And when it comes to it, more than left/right ideology, what the UK electorate votes for is a leader with conviction. That appears to believe what he says and says what he believes. Miliband didn't have that. Corbyn does.
I simply reject your incorrect neo-liberal idea of economics.
Maybe you can make a convincing argument that sending another probe to Mars is more important than traffic safety.
Why would I do that? The answer is for the government to spend on both. It's not necessary to chose. That's a false dichotomy.
The point is this: Is it a worthwhile thing. Then the government should spend on it. If not then they shouldn't. They don't have to choose between worthwhile things because some small-government people don't understand economics. There are no choices between spending on this worthwhile thing or that worthwhile thing - they are false dichotomies.
Your burning of a car example is excluded simply because it's not a worthwhile thing for a government to do. No other reason.
A mission to Mars should simply be judged on whether it is a worthwhile thing, employing people for a worthwhile result, not on whether it's more important than some other arbitrary government spend.
Lighting a car on fire shows that when money is spent on something stupid, value is actually lost. GP got confused and thought that as long as cash isn't burned, value isn't wasted. Burning the car is a vivid way of showing that spending money on something wasteful does in fact "use up" money aka resources.
No one is arguing with the fact that resources can be used up. It was there in my first post, but you missed it.
But money (such as tax) is not used up. It just keeps circulating. Trying to restrict the amount to which the government circulates the money via tax and spend is bad for the economy.
The "ten years of work" is the actual time they spent out of their professional careers, and the work is used up.
Correct. And very usefully so. And their work has produced things and knowledge of value.
But the money is NOT used up. It just keeps circulating.
I repeat:
What part of "For sure the hardware that is sent to Mars and the energy used to do it is gone. But most money spent isn't." did you not understand?
"hardware" and "energy" is not cash.
"money" is cash.
What are you not understanding?
But when you're talking about people who would willingly take a one way ticket to Mars, I think you can legitimately speculate on their suitability and level of craziness.
No you can't. A person simply having a different desire to you is not evidence of mental illness.
On a year by year basis there is a limited amount of money that is received by the government through taxes.
Of course it's not limited. The more the economy grows, the bigger the tax take. The bigger the tax take the more the government can spend. The more the government s[pends the more the economy grows. It's a virtuous circle.
If engineers spend ten years developing some thing, that ten years of work is used up, it's gone.
Absolutely wrong. Every penny you paid those engineers was recycled into the economy.
Which has no economic benefit to Earth and in fact has a drain as it has to be maintained by future missions.
How small minded.
That science could also be obtained by spending much less money on direct funding of that science rather than as an offshoot.
You simply can't say that.
I would rather spend 10% of the Mars costs on direct research that waste the 90% on science for science sake.
I'd rather boost the economy by spending on the big project.
Even if that objection were true, it doesn't apply here in that this isn't destruction, it's construction, in the long term we get a Mars Outpost from it, and in the short term we get lots of science and the off-shoots of that science.
We need number so we can make a valid decision. Do we have enough tax money to divert to this project without crippling government services?
The question implies a falsehood. There isn't a limited tax fund from which different things must be picked. Tax is a flow, not a cost. And keeping it flowing is beneficial to the economy. The moon programme for example expanded the economy. Without the moon program, the US would be poorer.
What part of "For sure the hardware that is sent to Mars and the energy used to do it is gone. But most money spent isn't." did you not understand?
Even with a "budget" it's not that easy. Most money government spends isn't lost. It's just recirculated in the economy. You pay scientists and engineers, and they pay tax, and they buy things in stores that pay tax etc, and the GDP goes up. For sure the hardware that is sent to Mars and the energy used to do it is gone. But most money spent isn't.
People came to america because it was "the land of plenty" (Pretty much the opposite of Mars)
Well rather a lot of them were running away from something. That side would be true of Mars volunteers too.
not just the few crazies.
With a world population of 7 billion, there's plenty of people that want to go to Mars, and yet are not so crazy they can't be allowed to go.
Until then, you're much better off building condos in the sahara with nice swimming pools because that will be a a lot cheaper and a MUCH MUCH easier sell.
Right. And instead of visiting the moon they could have... But I'm glad they visited the moon.
It was taken around the time of her death.
So as I say it's worthless as many of those polled don't even remember her term in office. A friend of mine, who is progressive and a feminist was sticking up for Thatcher a while ago, saying she was attacked just because she was a woman. Now for sure she would not have been defending Thatcher had she been old enough to actually remember her term of office. Her Feminist assumption that the attacks were based on her gender would be replaced with the knowledge that she was the most callous prime-minister we ever had.
or extrapolate from the fact no Prime Minister has been elected on an anti=-Thatcher platform.
There hasn't been one to vote for. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been votes were one offered. See the complete surprise of both the Labour establishment and the media over the landslide election of Corbyn as Labour leader. He was 100/1 or more before the voting started.
It's clear there has been a change in the political weather. Not just in the UK but internationally. In the 70s and earlier there was a mix of left and right government, but in the 80s through to the 00s, Right wing Neo-Liberalism rose internationally. If you're young, it may have seemed like the natural order, because it's all you ever saw. But it was just a phase. There was a time before it. And now we're beginning to see a time after it. Socialist parties in Greece and Spain. Socialist Corbyn winning the popular vote over Neo-liberal New Labour.
Even In America - A black president, "socialist" obamacare, gay marriage and cannabis decriminalisation. No one would have believed it a decade ago. And now, I see the front runner in the polls for the Democrats is Socialist Bernie Sanders. Quite something for such a neo-liberal country. I'm not saying he's going to get all the way to the Whitehouse, but it's certainly an indication that the times, they are a-changing.
Finally - you can't extrapolate the US respect for (ex)presidents to the UK. It's not even slightly similar. We don't even understand it.
Sorry missed the link for that last comment:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...