This is Apple investing in Google Glass. Remember that thing that Google did that failed miserably and that they gave up on years ago?
Apple is going to do that now, with the exact same result.
I've heard that one before about MP3 players, mobile phones, and tablets. All great examples of products where Apple was predicted to fail miserably, and failed miserably to fail miserably.
Don't bet against Apple in cases like this. On technical grounds I am not convinced AR can be done well, but if someone can do it, it is Apple.
Why does everything have to be an efficient investment? US society decided to give them all that money to use at their discretion, and they decided to spend it on this. That's their right. Perhaps they're just curious about this?
I have no idea how old you are, but it does not matter. When you were young there were people complaining about the feckless youth of that day. Heck, archeologists have found clay tablets
Don't expect coherency, honesty, or fairness if the non-integrated muslims throughout Europe ever get any real power, either.
Since there is zero chance of that happening in the next 50 years, and after that the world will have changed too much to make any reasonable predictions anyway, your prediction is uninteresting.
If with 'integration' you mean that all traces of their ancestorship have been erased, then yes, you may argue that integration has failed. But then integration of the immigrants from Indonesia, China, and Suriname has failed as well. Hell, even the Hugenots that fled from France centuries ago still have some French-language churches in the Netherlands.
For reasonable definitions of 'integration' things are working pretty well.
I mostly agree with the first part, but I'm confused by this. Is this ironic? Are you seriously blaming the rise of Erdogan on Obama?? Is this an in-joke I'm missing?
... For small values of 'they', but hey, xenophobes would never generalise, would they?
But go ahead, vote for Wilders, it's better than suppressing this idiocy. One warning, though: Wilders has as much of a clue as Trump, so don't expect coherency, honesty, or fairness if he ever gets any real power.
It is a good thing you didn't have mod points then, because I don't see a reason his post deserves to be modded down. In fact his post is better because at least he attempts to justify his position, whereas you don't motivate yours at all.
the people comparing this to the hillary email server are ignorant.
I'm sorry, but I never bought into the notion that Hillary Clinton did anything really problematic with this email server. It seems very out of character for her to share significant state secrets through a low-grade channel. I think it is far more plausible that she emailed about some things that were leaked by Edward Snowden or somebody else. Technically those things were (and quite possibly still are) state secrets, but hacking those servers would not reveal anything very interesting.
They are speculating the phone that he is using.
The word 'speculating' is an understatement. People have gone over old photos with DT's cellphone in it, and made a pretty solid identification of the type he was using. As in 'I am not aware of any other phone that has all these visual cues.' I think it is established that at least at the time of those photos he was using a fairly old Samsung Android phone. Of course, he may have replaced it with something more modern in the meantime.
and directly linking to other liberals mad that hes not using a trivial service like twitter from a phone that also handles top secret matters. I feel from a security standpoint there is nothing wrong with what he is doing with the phones.
That he's using twitter on an insecure phone is by itself obviously not a security issue. The issue is that he may be doing other things with that phone as well. Like making sensitive phone calls. It is already pretty well documented that he has violated security protocol in other instances, so that's not exactly wild speculation. And even just carrying an insecure phone around may be a security issue. AFAIK it is against Secret Service protocol, and it is easy to see why; it is like he's carrying a location tracker.
We all know how well programmers do now a days. I personally dont believe anything that connects to anything else is secure. There is always an exploit. Somebody just has to find it.
We have to agree to disagree then. Not every communication system is hackable within reasonable time. Even industrial products can be robust enough (e.g. bank communication), and if the NSA considers something secure enough for presidential use it must be pretty damn robust.
I'm sure obama never had a vulnerable phone. As every time a phone is released there are GROUPS of hackers that try to break it as fast as humanly possible. Mind you it never takes more than a few days
Well, at least the NSA damn well tried to give him a secure phone, and Obama cooperated with them. See the constant stream of news items on this subject during his presidency. You can always insist that it is not secure enough, no matter what was done. There is even a tiny chance that you are right, and that the hackers were smarter than the NSA. Your claim that it `never takes more than a few days' is just unfounded speculation, though. (To avoid using a stronger term.)
In any case, surely you're not going to argue that this is equivalent with a president who refuses to give up his civilian phone that is known to be insecure?
My theory is that Trump has always had 'Make America Grate Again' as slogan, but his tweets were always spelling-corrected by his phone. He's now living up to his original promise.
Trump did not even have control over the countries on the travel ban list, they were put there years ago,
He had full control. He decided to use that particular list. He could have used another list, he could have written a brand new list. Instead he picked a list that conveniently did not impact any of his business partners.
There are liberals, and then there are leftist lunatics.
This would be the latter.
Please explain what is so lunatic about the point he's making. This but Obama made me do it argument is so staggeringly dumb that nobody with a mental age above 5 takes it serious. I mean, Trump? Accepting recommendations from Obama? That's almost as dumb as the whole spiel about the `huge' inauguration attendance.
That leaves the adults wondering what the real reason is. The business interests explanation is not very convincing to me, but it is miles ahead of the but Obama made me the list explanation.
And that's ignoring the blatant insinuation that the Obama administration made that list for the kind of asshole measures that Trump has now ordered.
Any notion that the left will accept the suppression of gay and women's right is just post-thinking bunkum.
Except they do when it comes to Islam. That's why they call people out as "islamophobic" when the offer up criticism of Muslim culture.
Is this an attempt at logical thought, or just deflection? Because the second statement is false, and therefore cannot justify the first statement.
Any myths about 'no-go' areas in Europe are bovine excrement that ignorant North-Americans tell each other to feel superior.
You have no idea. Ask yourself why Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe.
I note that you have abandoned your original bogus claim. Pity you're replacing it with an equally bogus claim.
Still all twaddle. Ask yourself why you keep spouting all this twaddle: perhaps it is because you are in fact islamophobic? Or perhaps your news sources are lying to you?
In countries like Sweden they have huge political influence mostly through the proxy of many useful idiots on the left (white liberals, hell bent on cultural suicide). Otherwise my point stands - population growth difference will take care of the rest. This is of course notwithstanding the existing "no-go" areas for authorities in countries like Belgium and France.
Any notion that the left will accept the suppression of gay and women's right is just post-thinking bunkum.
Any notion that in any European country the population growth of Muslims could make them a majority in any reasonable timeframe is nonsense, the percentages aren't there anywhere. And that's even ignoring the implicit bonkers idea that the Muslim population would vote en masse for some kind of suppressive laws if they had the numbers. Many refugees have fled their homeland because of suppressive laws.
Any myths about 'no-go' areas in Europe are bovine excrement that ignorant North-Americans tell each other to feel superior.
If you look at Pew attitudes research, more than a critical mass believe in death for apostasy, more than a critical mass are against gay and women's rights.
I'm not sure you mean by 'critical mass' because you are deliberately vague about that. Do you mean significant political influence? That's not happening in any European country, so that's twaddle.
Slashdot Mirror
This is Apple investing in Google Glass. Remember that thing that Google did that failed miserably and that they gave up on years ago?
Apple is going to do that now, with the exact same result.
I've heard that one before about MP3 players, mobile phones, and tablets. All great examples of products where Apple was predicted to fail miserably, and failed miserably to fail miserably.
Don't bet against Apple in cases like this. On technical grounds I am not convinced AR can be done well, but if someone can do it, it is Apple.
Why does everything have to be an efficient investment? US society decided to give them all that money to use at their discretion, and they decided to spend it on this. That's their right. Perhaps they're just curious about this?
I suspect he was looking for the Tourette group therapy session rather than 4chan. I admit the difference is not immediately obvious.
with such rants.
Don't expect coherency, honesty, or fairness if the non-integrated muslims throughout Europe ever get any real power, either.
Since there is zero chance of that happening in the next 50 years, and after that the world will have changed too much to make any reasonable predictions anyway, your prediction is uninteresting.
your own fault. Should have let him be overthrown rather than calling in the special forces. Ok maybe Merkel didn't give the dutch a choice...
What the hell are you even talking about?
If with 'integration' you mean that all traces of their ancestorship have been erased, then yes, you may argue that integration has failed. But then integration of the immigrants from Indonesia, China, and Suriname has failed as well. Hell, even the Hugenots that fled from France centuries ago still have some French-language churches in the Netherlands.
For reasonable definitions of 'integration' things are working pretty well.
Thanks Obama!
I mostly agree with the first part, but I'm confused by this. Is this ironic? Are you seriously blaming the rise of Erdogan on Obama?? Is this an in-joke I'm missing?
... For small values of 'they', but hey, xenophobes would never generalise, would they?
But go ahead, vote for Wilders, it's better than suppressing this idiocy. One warning, though: Wilders has as much of a clue as Trump, so don't expect coherency, honesty, or fairness if he ever gets any real power.
Many Slashdotters have the attention span of a puppy on a tennis court.
You need to meet more humans.
It is a good thing you didn't have mod points then, because I don't see a reason his post deserves to be modded down. In fact his post is better because at least he attempts to justify his position, whereas you don't motivate yours at all.
the people comparing this to the hillary email server are ignorant.
I'm sorry, but I never bought into the notion that Hillary Clinton did anything really problematic with this email server. It seems very out of character for her to share significant state secrets through a low-grade channel. I think it is far more plausible that she emailed about some things that were leaked by Edward Snowden or somebody else. Technically those things were (and quite possibly still are) state secrets, but hacking those servers would not reveal anything very interesting.
They are speculating the phone that he is using.
The word 'speculating' is an understatement. People have gone over old photos with DT's cellphone in it, and made a pretty solid identification of the type he was using. As in 'I am not aware of any other phone that has all these visual cues.' I think it is established that at least at the time of those photos he was using a fairly old Samsung Android phone. Of course, he may have replaced it with something more modern in the meantime.
and directly linking to other liberals mad that hes not using a trivial service like twitter from a phone that also handles top secret matters. I feel from a security standpoint there is nothing wrong with what he is doing with the phones.
That he's using twitter on an insecure phone is by itself obviously not a security issue. The issue is that he may be doing other things with that phone as well. Like making sensitive phone calls. It is already pretty well documented that he has violated security protocol in other instances, so that's not exactly wild speculation. And even just carrying an insecure phone around may be a security issue. AFAIK it is against Secret Service protocol, and it is easy to see why; it is like he's carrying a location tracker.
We all know how well programmers do now a days. I personally dont believe anything that connects to anything else is secure. There is always an exploit. Somebody just has to find it.
We have to agree to disagree then. Not every communication system is hackable within reasonable time. Even industrial products can be robust enough (e.g. bank communication), and if the NSA considers something secure enough for presidential use it must be pretty damn robust.
I'm sure obama never had a vulnerable phone. As every time a phone is released there are GROUPS of hackers that try to break it as fast as humanly possible. Mind you it never takes more than a few days
Well, at least the NSA damn well tried to give him a secure phone, and Obama cooperated with them. See the constant stream of news items on this subject during his presidency. You can always insist that it is not secure enough, no matter what was done. There is even a tiny chance that you are right, and that the hackers were smarter than the NSA. Your claim that it `never takes more than a few days' is just unfounded speculation, though. (To avoid using a stronger term.)
In any case, surely you're not going to argue that this is equivalent with a president who refuses to give up his civilian phone that is known to be insecure?
Concrete examples? Hell, one significant concrete example?
Before all the sour-pusses have their say, I want to say this: good on him.
Will it work? No idea, but at least he's trying. And betting against Musk is always risky.
Is he crazy? Since he has so much money, and since he's not destructive, no, he is not crazy, he's eccentric.
Scientists rarely use stock photos of any kind in their publications, so you're not responding, just insinuating and deflecting.
Summary: life is more complicated than the current tribal cold war has people believe.
But I'm pretty sure CA has not spent billion dollars on a hyperloop project.
Yeah, just as a careful surgical procedure is the same as gleefully applying a chainsaw to an innocent victim.
(But your honour, that leg may have had gangrene, you cannot be too careful with gangrene, the victim should be thankful to me.)
My theory is that Trump has always had 'Make America Grate Again' as slogan, but his tweets were always spelling-corrected by his phone. He's now living up to his original promise.
Trump did not even have control over the countries on the travel ban list, they were put there years ago,
He had full control. He decided to use that particular list. He could have used another list, he could have written a brand new list. Instead he picked a list that conveniently did not impact any of his business partners.
There are liberals, and then there are leftist lunatics.
This would be the latter.
Please explain what is so lunatic about the point he's making. This but Obama made me do it argument is so staggeringly dumb that nobody with a mental age above 5 takes it serious. I mean, Trump? Accepting recommendations from Obama? That's almost as dumb as the whole spiel about the `huge' inauguration attendance.
That leaves the adults wondering what the real reason is. The business interests explanation is not very convincing to me, but it is miles ahead of the but Obama made me the list explanation.
And that's ignoring the blatant insinuation that the Obama administration made that list for the kind of asshole measures that Trump has now ordered.
Except they do when it comes to Islam. That's why they call people out as "islamophobic" when the offer up criticism of Muslim culture.
Is this an attempt at logical thought, or just deflection? Because the second statement is false, and therefore cannot justify the first statement.
You have no idea. Ask yourself why Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe.
I note that you have abandoned your original bogus claim. Pity you're replacing it with an equally bogus claim.
Still all twaddle. Ask yourself why you keep spouting all this twaddle: perhaps it is because you are in fact islamophobic? Or perhaps your news sources are lying to you?
In countries like Sweden they have huge political influence mostly through the proxy of many useful idiots on the left (white liberals, hell bent on cultural suicide). Otherwise my point stands - population growth difference will take care of the rest. This is of course notwithstanding the existing "no-go" areas for authorities in countries like Belgium and France.
Any notion that the left will accept the suppression of gay and women's right is just post-thinking bunkum.
Any notion that in any European country the population growth of Muslims could make them a majority in any reasonable timeframe is nonsense, the percentages aren't there anywhere. And that's even ignoring the implicit bonkers idea that the Muslim population would vote en masse for some kind of suppressive laws if they had the numbers. Many refugees have fled their homeland because of suppressive laws.
Any myths about 'no-go' areas in Europe are bovine excrement that ignorant North-Americans tell each other to feel superior.
Summary: you have no substance, just twaddle.
If you look at Pew attitudes research, more than a critical mass believe in death for apostasy, more than a critical mass are against gay and women's rights.
I'm not sure you mean by 'critical mass' because you are deliberately vague about that. Do you mean significant political influence? That's not happening in any European country, so that's twaddle.