The problem with this is why the person doing the study is important. If, when you get 10 MPH over the limit, the windshield pops up a huge warning message, that's bad. But having the speed on the view 100% of the time, with the color of the display changing as the limit is reached, and passed, would give the same information and should make you more safe, not less. I could ask the same question and get opposite answers, depending on what I want to find.
The HUD that's augmented reality (overlaying IR on real view, so you see deer sooner and such), that should never be a distraction.
What is in the HUD that's distracting? Everything the ECU knows, displayed in Matrix style? Yes, distracting and not useful. But the tasteful HUDs? If they are distracting and intrusive, that's more a driver problem, not a HUD problem.
Nope that's the first time for the R5 (the world's thinnest phone, or was last I checked). The other times were for the Find 7 (which I own), which was, at the time of purchase, the highest pixel density of any phone, though others have matched QHD, but in a (smaller) 5.1 screen.
Just because I'm happy with my purchase doesn't mean I'm a shill. Just trying to make the point that you can't judge every smartphone by the iPhone or Samsung de jour. So many complain about a specific flaw in a specific model, then generalize. Yes, thinner can mean weaker, that's why Oppo made a video of the world's thinnest phone cracking nuts, cutting apples and watermelons, and being run over by a car. If you still think that thin means weak, that's your insanity, not reality.
And yes, I watched all the marketing material and read many reviews before buying the Oppo, since I hadn't heard about them until I was looking for a replacement for my S3. The marketing videos seem relevant to the complaints here.
I gave up on Samsung with the S3. Given the claims and the reality, it isn't worth my money to try again after something so por and didn't do what they said. But other Android makers of the day beat the specs and weren't lying about them. But good to hear you have good experience with your S6
They may be expecting an advantage to 1000 cycles, but have only tested to 200 because of the time involved, and released with 200, and are halfway to 1000 by now.
It's only your assumption that they aren't testing to 1000.
Stop using Samsung. My S3 sounds like that. But I switched to Oppo, and there's a world of difference. Put the phone in some reasonable power-savings for a weekend camping trip, and you'll be fine (at least I can do that with my Find 7). But my S3 wouldn't last 8 hours at work without a charge. Even if I never used it once in that time.
My Oppo Find 7 will run 3 days or so if the screen doesn't come on. That's with cellular on (And in range, I've never had it out of range, but my Samsung Galaxy S3 would last about an hour if you were out of coverage). And it has a fast charger, charge about 1% per minute, so it's usable at 1 hour charge every 2 days. I'm no longer tied to a charger, like my S3 which, even under very light use, couldn't last an 8 hour day without being charged, so it was plugged in nearly 100% of the time.
My Oppo Find 7 is better than a friend's iPhone 6 of the same age.
The problem isn't "android" but the phones you are looking at. Target longer lives and you'll find options. My Samsung Galaxy S3 would last less than 30 minutes with a graphical game, or movie playing. I'll never go Samsung again. On the car charger, the GPS with screen off, giving directions would drain faster than it would charge, less than 20 minutes of GPS (off charger, about 30-40 on). If you went somewhere an hour away, you'd have to get close before turning on the directions app, or you'd never make it where you are going. But my current, the Oppo, does much better, even using the same maps/directions app.
Remember the size of cell phone batteries back in the day?
Back when they lasted a week on a charge? Yes, they were larger. And lasted longer. Much longer. Of course the phones were lower-draw (though not as low as you'd think, as the radios were more power hungry).
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
By Constitutional standards, that had no meaning. An individual can infringe on someone else's rights. Kidnapping, murder, assault, rape are all illegal, because they infringe on the rights of others. So, note the wording. It should be illegal for any business to enforce a "no firearms" rule. Also note, this Amendment doesn't restrict itself to US jurisdiction, as so many others do, with "residents" or "citizens", but "people". So The UK is violating the US constititution by infringing on The Right of The People to keep and bear arms.
Also, the use of "infringed" is unique. It appears nowhere else in the Constitution. Infringe is a different standard than used anywhere else.
For many reasons, the 2nd Amendment is unenforceable. If you take the whole sentence, with the first part proven wrong (by our holding of a standing army), then you could take the whole thing to be false (even if the second clause is valid on its own, the sentence is invalid, when any part is invalid). The wording in the second clause is unusual and out of place, and so impractical as to be invalid (banning people from refusing entry to personal guests in your own home based on the presence or absence of arms on the guests). The official response to that for the 9th and 10th Amendments was to essentially declare them invalid. The same should be done with the 2nd, and a new Amendment considered if that's an issue to enough people. Neither the "for" nor "against" crowds can agree internally as to the meaning, let alone the two groups agreeing on a single meaning.
I'm surprised nobody is making sensors more sensitive in the UV and IR ranges, and false-coloring them into the spectrum, IR red-brown, and UV with blue-brown. The low-light results would be better, and allow for more photographic tricks.
For that matter, make sensors that work to visible+100% on each side, and compress the entire visual spectrum to that 3x visual, so things would be a false-color outside human range. Use it as a type of tri-corder.
The Tacoma is not seeing a sales drop. Ford has just decided to sell the Ranger as a full-sized truck in foreign markets. If the segment was dead, they wouldn't be making them for the global market, and the Tacoma wouldn't still be going strong.
The difficulty in making the Ranger for the US and global is what killed it (that and the rules for CAFE that the US makers helped make that punish the larger vehicles that don't make the GVWR cutoff, which is what helped seal the fate of the Ranger). If there could be a world car that was exactly the same (other than steering wheel side) and sold in Japan, US, and Europe, then the Ranger would be available in the US, because the incremental cost would be so small. Instead, the rules for the foreign-Ranger are so harsh, that they can't import them and make money on them. So no more.
And that's why there are no longer foreign cars sold in the US.
SEAT? FIAT? MG? Citroen? There are lots of makes that left, or were never here. There are lots of Chinese makers that sell around the world, but stay away from the US. It's hard to get into the US market, and not just because the customers don't like Chinese crap, but that the rules are punitive and arbitrary.
Nope. They'll go the way of Chrysler next time. Sold to a foreign maker, who then sells them off for a loss later. Effectively dead, but alive in name only, for now.
On December 22, 2011, the last USA-built Ranger rolled off the St. Paul, Minnesota assembly line.
The Ranger is no longer made in, or sold in the USA. The rules that made Ford stop it were initially put in place to stop the Tacoma, and done with full Ford approval and support.
Yes, I'm aware that after Ford lobbied for the rules, they were later modified to something Ford didn't want. But if Ford had opposed the rules in the first place, and hadn't lobbied themselves into a corner, then they'd be able to compete.
They know they can't make a pickup that competes with the Tacoma, so they lie and say it's Obama's environmental rules, or something like that.
I think you are the one that needs to read up on what happened. Ford tries to use the government to pass isolationist rules. And 50 years later, it causes them harm. Ford is the victim, for buying off Congress, but not the President. Poor Ford.
They've always recognized this. If you want 80% of the best for the lowest price, you want AMD. If you want the top 20% at any price, go Intel. I remember the marketing from 5, 10 and 15 years ago, and it seems to me that AMD always knew that. They may not like it, but they knew it.
No, it it is a useless statistic. The median price is more useful then the mean price. That is true of almost anything with only one long tail (cars will never be less than $0, but can be more than $1,000,000
Impossible. The required safety gear is more than that in some places, and the standards aren't unified, so they have to have different cars in different countries to meet similar (but not aligned) standards.
Hopefully, that will cause GM to fail, as it's GM that caused it. GM deliberately lobbied for rules that were different from foreign markets to make it harder for foreign entrance into the US. That level of isolation and insulation was to prevent others from entering. But since Toyota became a large US brand, GM and Ford have lost significant share. Ford managed to lobby the Ranger out of existence, trying to stop the Tacoma. But the Tacoma is still in the US, and the Ranger isn't.
I hope this makes GM fail. When there are no US makers left, we'll finally have a market where automobiles are based on their merits, not which country they were founded (not owned, as much of GM and Ford are foreign owned).
You didn't catch me in a contradiction. You just stated you aren't smart enough to word a delicate question in an ethical manner. That your ethics is lacking isn't a surprise.
Nonsense. Asking questions and discussing issues is not bigotry.
Yes, like the poll questions near election time. "Did you hear the accusation that sidelash rapes under-age, dead, squirrels?" After all, it's just a question. But asking in that manner is designed to cause deliberate and measurable harm, and from the studies, works.
Your implication is that questions can't be bigoted. Reality proves you wrong, but you refuse to live in reality, as it doesn't agree with your bigoted world view.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but golf balls travel further because they are turbulent.
The problem with this is why the person doing the study is important. If, when you get 10 MPH over the limit, the windshield pops up a huge warning message, that's bad. But having the speed on the view 100% of the time, with the color of the display changing as the limit is reached, and passed, would give the same information and should make you more safe, not less. I could ask the same question and get opposite answers, depending on what I want to find.
The HUD that's augmented reality (overlaying IR on real view, so you see deer sooner and such), that should never be a distraction.
What is in the HUD that's distracting? Everything the ECU knows, displayed in Matrix style? Yes, distracting and not useful. But the tasteful HUDs? If they are distracting and intrusive, that's more a driver problem, not a HUD problem.
Nope that's the first time for the R5 (the world's thinnest phone, or was last I checked). The other times were for the Find 7 (which I own), which was, at the time of purchase, the highest pixel density of any phone, though others have matched QHD, but in a (smaller) 5.1 screen.
Just because I'm happy with my purchase doesn't mean I'm a shill. Just trying to make the point that you can't judge every smartphone by the iPhone or Samsung de jour. So many complain about a specific flaw in a specific model, then generalize. Yes, thinner can mean weaker, that's why Oppo made a video of the world's thinnest phone cracking nuts, cutting apples and watermelons, and being run over by a car. If you still think that thin means weak, that's your insanity, not reality.
And yes, I watched all the marketing material and read many reviews before buying the Oppo, since I hadn't heard about them until I was looking for a replacement for my S3. The marketing videos seem relevant to the complaints here.
I gave up on Samsung with the S3. Given the claims and the reality, it isn't worth my money to try again after something so por and didn't do what they said. But other Android makers of the day beat the specs and weren't lying about them. But good to hear you have good experience with your S6
Plus of course, 1.8x at brand new means that all other things being equal, you'll have many fewer charge cycles.
No, it doesn't.
a smaller phone - which isn't really very likely, they're already reaching the limits of what you can do in terms of structural strength
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Hmm, thinner than an iPhone, and they drive a car over it. Though I didn't see a bend test, they seem to be implying it's strong.
They may be expecting an advantage to 1000 cycles, but have only tested to 200 because of the time involved, and released with 200, and are halfway to 1000 by now.
It's only your assumption that they aren't testing to 1000.
Stop using Samsung. My S3 sounds like that. But I switched to Oppo, and there's a world of difference. Put the phone in some reasonable power-savings for a weekend camping trip, and you'll be fine (at least I can do that with my Find 7). But my S3 wouldn't last 8 hours at work without a charge. Even if I never used it once in that time.
My Oppo Find 7 will run 3 days or so if the screen doesn't come on. That's with cellular on (And in range, I've never had it out of range, but my Samsung Galaxy S3 would last about an hour if you were out of coverage). And it has a fast charger, charge about 1% per minute, so it's usable at 1 hour charge every 2 days. I'm no longer tied to a charger, like my S3 which, even under very light use, couldn't last an 8 hour day without being charged, so it was plugged in nearly 100% of the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not shaving, but does cutting a watermelon with a phone count?
My Oppo Find 7 is better than a friend's iPhone 6 of the same age.
The problem isn't "android" but the phones you are looking at. Target longer lives and you'll find options. My Samsung Galaxy S3 would last less than 30 minutes with a graphical game, or movie playing. I'll never go Samsung again. On the car charger, the GPS with screen off, giving directions would drain faster than it would charge, less than 20 minutes of GPS (off charger, about 30-40 on). If you went somewhere an hour away, you'd have to get close before turning on the directions app, or you'd never make it where you are going. But my current, the Oppo, does much better, even using the same maps/directions app.
Remember the size of cell phone batteries back in the day?
Back when they lasted a week on a charge? Yes, they were larger. And lasted longer. Much longer. Of course the phones were lower-draw (though not as low as you'd think, as the radios were more power hungry).
Your logic fails, as it's open to "no true puritan" for any pregnancy.
Bristol Palin practices abstinence quite publicly, and ended up unwed and pregnant again.
Those educated puritanically get pregnant more often than those who are educated in a non-puritan manner.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
By Constitutional standards, that had no meaning. An individual can infringe on someone else's rights. Kidnapping, murder, assault, rape are all illegal, because they infringe on the rights of others. So, note the wording. It should be illegal for any business to enforce a "no firearms" rule. Also note, this Amendment doesn't restrict itself to US jurisdiction, as so many others do, with "residents" or "citizens", but "people". So The UK is violating the US constititution by infringing on The Right of The People to keep and bear arms.
Also, the use of "infringed" is unique. It appears nowhere else in the Constitution. Infringe is a different standard than used anywhere else.
For many reasons, the 2nd Amendment is unenforceable. If you take the whole sentence, with the first part proven wrong (by our holding of a standing army), then you could take the whole thing to be false (even if the second clause is valid on its own, the sentence is invalid, when any part is invalid). The wording in the second clause is unusual and out of place, and so impractical as to be invalid (banning people from refusing entry to personal guests in your own home based on the presence or absence of arms on the guests). The official response to that for the 9th and 10th Amendments was to essentially declare them invalid. The same should be done with the 2nd, and a new Amendment considered if that's an issue to enough people. Neither the "for" nor "against" crowds can agree internally as to the meaning, let alone the two groups agreeing on a single meaning.
I'm surprised nobody is making sensors more sensitive in the UV and IR ranges, and false-coloring them into the spectrum, IR red-brown, and UV with blue-brown. The low-light results would be better, and allow for more photographic tricks.
For that matter, make sensors that work to visible+100% on each side, and compress the entire visual spectrum to that 3x visual, so things would be a false-color outside human range. Use it as a type of tri-corder.
In this case, it was confirmed by at least 3 others, and nobody, including the "victim", has disputed it.
The Tacoma is not seeing a sales drop. Ford has just decided to sell the Ranger as a full-sized truck in foreign markets. If the segment was dead, they wouldn't be making them for the global market, and the Tacoma wouldn't still be going strong.
The difficulty in making the Ranger for the US and global is what killed it (that and the rules for CAFE that the US makers helped make that punish the larger vehicles that don't make the GVWR cutoff, which is what helped seal the fate of the Ranger). If there could be a world car that was exactly the same (other than steering wheel side) and sold in Japan, US, and Europe, then the Ranger would be available in the US, because the incremental cost would be so small. Instead, the rules for the foreign-Ranger are so harsh, that they can't import them and make money on them. So no more.
And that's why there are no longer foreign cars sold in the US.
SEAT? FIAT? MG? Citroen? There are lots of makes that left, or were never here. There are lots of Chinese makers that sell around the world, but stay away from the US. It's hard to get into the US market, and not just because the customers don't like Chinese crap, but that the rules are punitive and arbitrary.
Nope. They'll go the way of Chrysler next time. Sold to a foreign maker, who then sells them off for a loss later. Effectively dead, but alive in name only, for now.
On December 22, 2011, the last USA-built Ranger rolled off the St. Paul, Minnesota assembly line.
The Ranger is no longer made in, or sold in the USA. The rules that made Ford stop it were initially put in place to stop the Tacoma, and done with full Ford approval and support.
Yes, I'm aware that after Ford lobbied for the rules, they were later modified to something Ford didn't want. But if Ford had opposed the rules in the first place, and hadn't lobbied themselves into a corner, then they'd be able to compete.
They know they can't make a pickup that competes with the Tacoma, so they lie and say it's Obama's environmental rules, or something like that.
I think you are the one that needs to read up on what happened. Ford tries to use the government to pass isolationist rules. And 50 years later, it causes them harm. Ford is the victim, for buying off Congress, but not the President. Poor Ford.
Yes, I'm hanging myself by clearly proving you wrong, over and over.
They've always recognized this. If you want 80% of the best for the lowest price, you want AMD. If you want the top 20% at any price, go Intel. I remember the marketing from 5, 10 and 15 years ago, and it seems to me that AMD always knew that. They may not like it, but they knew it.
No, it it is a useless statistic. The median price is more useful then the mean price. That is true of almost anything with only one long tail (cars will never be less than $0, but can be more than $1,000,000
Impossible. The required safety gear is more than that in some places, and the standards aren't unified, so they have to have different cars in different countries to meet similar (but not aligned) standards.
Hopefully, that will cause GM to fail, as it's GM that caused it. GM deliberately lobbied for rules that were different from foreign markets to make it harder for foreign entrance into the US. That level of isolation and insulation was to prevent others from entering. But since Toyota became a large US brand, GM and Ford have lost significant share. Ford managed to lobby the Ranger out of existence, trying to stop the Tacoma. But the Tacoma is still in the US, and the Ranger isn't.
I hope this makes GM fail. When there are no US makers left, we'll finally have a market where automobiles are based on their merits, not which country they were founded (not owned, as much of GM and Ford are foreign owned).
Playing dumb, you do it so well.
You didn't catch me in a contradiction. You just stated you aren't smart enough to word a delicate question in an ethical manner. That your ethics is lacking isn't a surprise.
Nonsense. Asking questions and discussing issues is not bigotry.
Yes, like the poll questions near election time. "Did you hear the accusation that sidelash rapes under-age, dead, squirrels?" After all, it's just a question. But asking in that manner is designed to cause deliberate and measurable harm, and from the studies, works.
Your implication is that questions can't be bigoted. Reality proves you wrong, but you refuse to live in reality, as it doesn't agree with your bigoted world view.
There are places where it is a civil offense to utilize volunteers for _any_ purpose
I doubt that would apply to the government utilizing a volunteer fireman.